not mine. copyright to the owner

Upload: yena-bonita

Post on 23-Feb-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    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, !""&

    b. $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

    %. '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

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    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

    b.$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 officer for si'ulating birth

    certificate( $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( 7is'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

    8ctober !"1"b. rit of abeas )orpus( Not proper pending -pecial )i/il

    $ction for )ertiorari before the )ourt of $ppeals &th

    7i/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"!:

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    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

    b. $'paro( Not applied to those instances other than right

    to life, liberty or security i.e. personal property:

    In the Matter of the Petition for the /rit of Amparo

    and the /rit of 7a$eas 3ata in %avor of Melissa #" Ro

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    4/39

    Page +of 39

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    5/39

    Page ,of 39

    *!SETT'EENT O: EST*TE O: DECE*SED

    PERSON

    Pro/ate o# t&e ;ill in t&e #oreign co%ntr ;&ere t&e alien

    deceased resides condition sine 7%a non #or Repro/ate o#t&e ;ill in t&e P&ilippines

    en?a'in:, nephews of Ruperta,

    opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta=s will should not be probated in the

    Philippines but in the ;.-. where she e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    6/39

    Page of 39

    ! of Rule &6 further state that the eut, reprobate or re5

    authentication of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign country is

    different fro' that probate where the will is presented for the first ti'e before a

    co'petent court. Reprobate is specifically go/erned by Rule && of the Rules of

    )ourt. )ontrary to petitioners= stance, since this latter rule applies only to

    reprobate of a will, it cannot be 'ade to apply to the present case. 0n reprobate,

    the local court acBnowledges as binding the findings of the foreign probate court

    pro/ided its ?urisdiction o/er the 'atter can be established.

    >esides, petitioners= stand is fraught with i'practically. 0f the instituted heirs

    do not ha/e the 'eans to go abroad for the probate of the will, it is as good as

    depri/ing the' outright of their inheritance, since our law requires that no will shall

    pass either real or personal property unless the will has been pro/ed and allowed by

    the proper court.

    ?!$8*RD

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    7/39

    Page @of 39

    -o'eti'e later and within the rede'ption period, the said brothers and their

    'other, in lieu of $lberto, tendered their pay'ent to 7r. )orro'pido. -ubsequently,

    -aturnina, and her four children, >onifacio, $lbino, rancisco and Aeonora sold the

    said land to -pouses eliano. 0t was pro/ided in the deed of sale that the shares of

    Nelson and Rito, being 'inor at the ti'e of the sale, will be held in trust by the

    /endee and will paid upon the' reaching the age of !1.

    0n 19*6, Rito recei/ed the su' of 1,14% pesos fro' the -pouses eliano

    representing his share fro' the proceeds of the sale of the property. 0t was only in

    19**, that Nelson learned of the sale fro' his uncle, Rito. e signified his intention

    to redee' the property in 199% but it was only in 199+ that he filed a co'plaint for

    rede'ption against the -pouses eliano. he respondent -pouses a/erred that the

    petitioners are estopped fro' denying the sale since( 1: Rito already recei/ed his

    share@ and !: Nelson, failed to tender the total a'ount of the rede'ption price.

    he Regional rial )ourt ruled in fa/our of -pouses eliano on the ground that

    Nelson was no longer entitled to the property since, his right was subrogated by-aturnina upon the death of his father, $lberto. 0t also alleged that Rito had no 'ore

    right to redee' since -aturnina, being his legal guardian at the ti'e of the sale was

    properly /ested with the right to alienate the sa'e.

    he )ourt of $ppeals 'odified the decision of the trial court stating that the

    sale 'ade by -aturnina in behalf of Rito and Nelson were unenforceable.

    0--;3(

    hether or not the sale 'ade by a legal guardian -aturnina: in behalf of the

    'inors were binding upon the'.

    3A7(

    ith regard to the share of Rito, the contract of sale was /alid. ;nder

    -ection 1, Rule 96 C$ guardian shall ha/e the care and custody of the person of his

    ward, and the 'anage'ent of his estate, or the 'anage'ent of the estate only. < >> is 'arried to appellant, who was worBing abroad for si< years. $ppellant

    ca'e ho'e in 199& and li/ed with $$$ and >>>. >>> was worBing as a restaurant

    super/isor fro' 4p' to !a' for si< days a weeB.

    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 worB, appellant again touched $$$

    fro' her legs up to her breast.

    wo weeBs after the incident, $$$ was already asleep when she suddenly

    woBe up and saw appellant holding a Bnife, then appellant was able to penetrate

    her. wo days after, appellant again raped her. $$$ recounted that appellant raped

    her at least % ti'es a weeB at the sa'e ti'e until 8ctober 1+, !""!, when she was

    14 yrs. old.

    R) rendered ?udg'ent finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

    1*1 counts of rape.)$ affir'ed the finding 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 qualifyingEaggra/ating circu'stances of relationship is applicable.

    3A7(

    o ?ustify the death penalty, the prosecution 'ust specifically allege in the

    infor'ation and pro/e during the trial the qualifying circu'stances of 'inority of

    the /icti' and her relationship to the offender.

    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 first enunciated in the early case of People /s. 7ela )ru2 which held that the

    guardian referred to in the law is either a legal or ?udicial guardian as understood in

    the rules on )i/il Procedure.

    he law requires a legal or ?udicial guardian since it is the consanguineous

    relation or the sole'nity of ?udicial appoint'ent which i'presses upon the guardian

    the lofty purpose of his office and nor'ally deters hi' fro' /iolating its ob?ecti/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 con?ointly

    de'onstrate that he is actually only a custodian, that is, a 'ere caretaBer of the

    children o/er who' he ee 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 Cadopting fatherD of $$$, which the prosecution nonetheless failed to establish.

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    9/39

    Page 9of 39

    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 qualified rape.

    :id%ciar :%nds S&all Re"ain it& Co%rt

    Posted anuary %1 , !"11@ >y $nna Fatrina #. #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 Chas no legal basis,D and the re'ittance of interests of the

    iduciary unds to the national go/ern'ent Cis erroneous and 'ust be

    discontinued.D

    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 eureau

    of reasury, regardless of inco'e source, while the !""* G$$ directs go/ern'ent

    agencies to booB trust and other receipts Cwhich ha/e been recei/ed as guaranty

    for the fulfil'ent of an obligationD with the National reasury. oint )ircular No. 15

    9&, on the other hand, requires that all National Go/ern'ent cash balances be

    deposited with the National reasury.

    0n an 3n >anc Resolution, the -upre'e )ourt clarified whether the deposits in

    its iduciary unds and in those of the lower courts as well as the Philippine#ediation )enter should be re'itted to the National reasury, as suggested by

    )8$.

    he )ourt said while funds that properly accrue to the General und 'ust be

    turned o/er to the >ureau of reasury, which is under the 3

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    10/39

    Page 10of 39

    he igh )ourt said that while >atas Pa'bansa >lg. %!+ pro/ides that, unless

    otherwise pro/ided, all collections fro' fees and charges of go/ern'ent agencies,

    including the -upre'e )ourt, shall accrue to the General und of the National

    Go/ern'ent, an e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    11/39

    Page 11of 39

    owned is about to be sold, eodoro filed a petition for the issuance of the letter of

    guardianship of his father. 0n the petition, he prayed for the issuance of the letters

    of guardianship in fa/or of his 'other and petitioner, Gilda.

    7ays later, Gilda filed a petition for the declaration of incapacity of 7r.

    ardele2a, ad'inistration of con?ugal properties, and authority of sell the sa'e. 0nthe said petition, she prayed for such reliefs because of the increasing hospital bills

    due to the fact that 7r. ardele2a is confined in an intensi/e care unit 0);:.

    ;pon the finding of the petition to be in for', the R) issued a notice for

    hearing, which happened few days after. 8n the sa'e date of the hearing, the R),

    upon hearing the witnesses presented by Gilda, granted such petition. eodoro

    filed an 8pposition contending that he was unaware that the case was already

    decided. e also filed a #otion for Reconsideration contending that the proper

    re'edy in the case is not the petition filed by his 'other, but the petition for

    guardianship proceedings. $s such, the case cannot be heard under the rules of

    su''ary proceedings as conte'plated in $rticle !+% of the a'ily )ode. e alsonoted that the pro/isions on su''ary proceedings, found in )hapter ! of the

    a'ily )ode, co'es under the heading on C-eparation in act >etween usband

    and ifeD which conte'plates of a situation where both spouses are of disposing

    'ind. hus, he argued that were one spouse is Cco'atose without 'otor and

    'ental faculties,D the said pro/isions cannot be 'ade to apply.

    0ssue( hether the pro/ision of $rticle 1!4 of the a'ily )ode applies in this case

    when one of the spose is incapacitated to gi/e his consentL

    eld(

    No. $rticle 1!4 of the a'ily )ode pro/ides as follows(

    C$R. 1!4. he ad'inistration and en?oy'ent of the con?ugal partnership property

    shall belong to both spouses ?ointly. 0n case of disagree'ent, the husband=s

    decision shall pre/ail, sub?ect to recourse to the court by the wife for a proper

    re'edy which 'ust be a/ailed of within fi/e years fro' the date of the contract

    i'ple'enting such decision.

    C0n the e/ent that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in

    the ad'inistration of the con?ugal properties, the other spouse 'ay assu'e sole

    powers of ad'inistration. hese powers do not include the powers of disposition or

    encu'brance which 'ust ha/e the authority of the court or the written consent of

    the other spouse. 0n the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or

    encu'brance shall be /oid. owe/er, the transaction shall be construed as a

    continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and 'ay

    be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or

    authori2ation by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.

    16+a:.D

    0n regular 'anner, the rules on su''ary ?udicial proceedings under the

    a'ily )ode go/ern the proceedings under $rticle 1!4 of the a'ily )ode. he

    situation conte'plated is one where the spouse is absent, or separated in fact orhas abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be obtained. -uch rules

    do not apply to cases where the non5consenting spouse is incapacitated or

    inco'petent to gi/e consent. 0n this case, the trial court found that the sub?ect

    spouse Mis an inco'petentM who was in co'atose or se'i5co'atose condition, a

    /icti' of stroBe, cerebro/ascular accident, without 'otor and 'ental faculties, and

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    12/39

    Page 12of 39

    with a diagnosis of brain ste' infarct. 0n such case, the proper re'edy is a ?udicial

    guardianship proceedings under Rule 9% of the 1964 Re/ised Rules of )ourt.

    3/en assu'ing that the rules of su''ary ?udicial proceedings under the

    a'ily )ode 'ay apply to the wifes ad'inistration of the con?ugal property, the law

    pro/ides that the wife who assu'es sole powers of ad'inistration has the sa'epowers and duties as a guardian under the Rules of )ourt.

    )onsequently, a spouse who desires to sell real property as such

    ad'inistrator of the con?ugal property 'ust obser/e the procedure for the sale of

    the ward=s estate required of ?udicial guardians under Rule 9+, 1964 Re/ised Rules

    of )ourt, not the su''ary ?udicial proceedings under the a'ily )ode.

    0n the case at bar, the trial court did not co'ply with the procedure under the

    Re/ised Rules of )ourt. 0ndeed, the trial court did not e/en obser/e the

    require'ents of the su''ary ?udicial proceedings under the a'ily )ode. hus, the

    trial court did not ser/e notice of the petition to the incapacitated spouse@ it did not

    require hi' to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

    $%ardians&ip oer

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    13/39

    Page 13of 39

    a single fluorescent la'p without running water. 7ue to Aulus poor hygiene,

    respondent brought her to se/eral physicians for 'edical e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    14/39

    Page 1+of 39

    C*T*'-8A;3 -$A3 despite the lacB 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 qualification to acquire land. 8nly the

    Go/ern'ent through the -olicitor General has the personality to file 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 ad?udged to

    be not a ilipino citi2en, the affected property re/erts to the -tate, not to the

    pre/ious owner or indi/idual. 0t will not inure to the benefit of the petitioner, instead

    the sub?ect property will be escheated in fa/or of the -tate according to >P >lg. 1*+.

    D!*DOPT

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    15/39

    Page 1,of 39

    children=s parents. he children were na'ed #ichelle P. Ai' and #ichael ude P.

    Ai'. he spouses reared and cared for the children as if they were their own. hey

    sent the children to e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    16/39

    Page 1of 39

    heEshe has the legal capacity to adopt in hisEher country, and that hisEher

    go/ern'ent allows the adoptee to enter hisEher country as hisEher adopted

    sonEdaughter( Pro/ided, further, hat the require'ents on residency and

    certification of the alien=s qualification to adopt in hisEher country 'ay be wai/ed for

    the following(

    i: a for'er ilipino citi2en who seeBs to adopt a relati/e within the fourth 4th:

    degree of consanguinity or affinity@ or

    ii: one who seeBs to adopt the legiti'ate sonEdaughter of hisEher ilipino spouse@ or

    iii: one who is 'arried to a ilipino citi2en and seeBs to adopt ?ointly with hisEher

    spouse a relati/e within the fourth 4th: degree of consanguinity or affinity of the

    ilipino spouses@ or

    c: he guardian with respect to the ward after the ter'ination of the guardianship

    and clearance of hisEher financial accountabilities.

    usband and wife shall ?ointly adopt, e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    17/39

    Page 1@of 39

    oint adoption of the husband and wife 'ay not be dispensed. $doption has,

    thus, the following effects(

    1: se/er all legal ties between the biological parents: and the adoptee, eernardo 0bea. Respondent udge >elen granted the petition afterfinding that petitioner spouses were highly qualified to adopt the child as their own,

    basing his decree pri'arily on the Mfindings and reco''endation of the 7-7 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.M 8n these considerations, respondent ?udge decided

    and proceeded to dispense with trial custody. e asserted that the 7-7 findings

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    18/39

    Page 1of 39

    and reco''endations are contained in the M$dopti/e o'e -tudy ReportM and

    M)hild -tudy ReportM prepared by the local office of the 7-7 through respondent

    3l'a P. edaa.

    owe/er, when the 'inor Qhedell >ernardo 0bea sought to obtain the

    requisite tra/el clearance fro' the 7-7 in order to ?oin her adopti/e parents inthe ;nited -tates, the 7-7 found that it did not ha/e any record in its files

    regarding the adoption and that there was ne/er any order fro' respondent ?udge

    for the 7-7 to conduct a Mo'e and )hild -tudy ReportM in the case.

    urther'ore, there was no directi/e fro' respondent ?udge for the social welfare

    officer of the lower court to coordinate with the 7-7 on the 'atter of the required

    reports for said 'inors adoption.

    0--;3(

    #ay a decree of adoption be granted on the basis of case study reports 'ade

    by a social welfare officer of the courtL

    R;A0NG(

    No. $rticle %% of the )hild and outh elfare )ode pro/ides in no uncertain

    ter's that(

    No petition for adoption shall be granted unless the 7epart'ent of -ocial elfare,

    or the -ocial orB and )ounseling 7i/ision, in case of u/enile and 7o'estic

    Relations )ourts, has 'ade a case study of the child to be adopted, his natural

    parents 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

    7epart'ent of -ocial elfare shall inter/ene on behalf of the child if it finds, aftersuch 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 ?udges, particularly in

    respect to the afore'entioned case study to be conducted in accordance with

    $rticle %% of Presidential 7ecree No. 6"% by the 7-7 itself and in/ol/ing the child

    to be adopted, its natural parents, and the adopting parents. 0t definiti/ely directs

    Regional rial )ourts hearing adoption cases(

    1: to N80 the #inistry of -ocial -er/ices and 7e/elop'ent, thru its local agency,

    of the filing of adoption cases or the pendency thereof with respect to those casesalready filed@

    !: to strictly )8#PA with the require'ent in $rticle %% of the aforesaid decree . . .

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    19/39

    Page 19of 39

    ne/er ha/e 'erely presu'ed that it was routinary for the social welfare officer to

    coordinate with the 7-7 regarding the adoption proceedings. 0t was his duty to

    eernardo 0bea in

    this case. reading on equally sensiti/e legal terrain, the social welfare officer

    concerned, respondent 3l'a P. edaa, arrogated unto herself a 'atter that

    pertained eelen of the Regional rial )ourt, >ranch %*, of Aingayen, Pangasinan is hereby

    )3N-;R37 for /iolating $rticle %% of Presidential 7ecree No. 6"% and )ircular No.

    1! of this )ourt@ and respondent 3l'a P. edaa, -ocial elfare 8fficer 00 of the

    8ffice of the )lerB of )ourt, Regional rial )ourt of Aingayen, Pangasinan, is

    R3PR0#$N737 for /iolating )ircular No. 1!.

    Si"%lation o# ?irt& Penalt o# a p%/lic o##icer ;&o

    registers a c&ild to t&e Ciil Registr not o# t&e c&ilds/iological parents!

    Sec! 216 *rticle =aldonado )ura'en in the local ci/il registry of Ri2al,

    Nue/a 3ci?a. )o'plainant sub'itted the child=s purported birth certificate 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'edrespondent was, in fact, the child=s 'aternal grand'other. )o'plainant sub'itted

    the child=s original birth certificate to show that the child=s real na'e was Rinea

    #ae )ura'en $quino and that her parents were spouses 8lga #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.

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    20/39

    Page 20of 39

    0n his Report, 3ranch !4: of )abanatuan )ity /erified that Rinea #ae )ura'en $quino and Rica

    #ae >aldonado )ura'en were the sa'e child. udge )aspillo confir'ed that the

    child was, in fact, respondent=s granddaughter. he child=s real 'other, 8lga, was

    one of respondent=s children.

    udge )aspillo /erified that on %1 #arch !""6, respondent eut in the interest of substantial ?ustice, we 'ay appreciate the

    'itigating circu'stance in the i'position of penalty, e/en if not raised byrespondent.

    e thus i'pose on respondent the penalty ne

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    21/39

    Page 21of 39

    N*C.8R*6J.:

    :*CTSPetitioner 7a/id 3. -o -o: filed the petition for the writs of habeas corpus

    and a'paro on behalf of his daughter, #a. 3lena -o Guisande Guisande:, accusedof Oualified heft in the cri'inal case pending before udge acla. Petitioner -o

    alleged, a'ong others, that Guisande was under a life5threatening situation whileconfined at the N)#, the go/ern'ent hospital ordered by the R) #andaluyong)ity to ascertain the actual psychological state of Guisande, who was being chargedwith a non5bailable offense.

    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 #aBati #edical )enter ##):. hus, the return of the warrant for the arrest ofGuisande, issued by udge acla which states that the for'er was confined at ##)for >ipolar #ood 7isorder and that she was Mnot ready for dischargeM. udge aclaordered Guisande=s referral to the N)# for an independent forensic assess'ent ofGuisande=s 'ental health to deter'ine if she would be able to stand arraign'entand undergo trial for Oualified heft. -ubsequently, udge acla, upon 'otion of the

    N)#, ordered that accused Guisande be physically brought to the N)# to ha/ete'porary legal custody of the accused, and thereafter, udge acla would issue thecorresponding order of confine'ent of Guisande in a regular ?ail facility upon theN)#s deter'ination that she was ready for trial.

    3/entually, clai'ing Mlife5threateningM circu'stances surrounding herconfine'ent at the N)# which supposedly worsened her 'ental condition and/iolated her constitutional rights against solitary detention and assistance ofcounsel, accused Guisande and her father filed a #otion for Relief fro' -olitary)onfine'ent and the present petition for the issuance of the writs of habeas corpusand a'paro.

    he court granted the #otion for Relief. 8n the petition for habeas corpus anda'paro, the court resol/ed to issue a ?oint writ of habeas corpus and a'paro andrefer the petition to the )ourt of $ppeals for decision. #eanwhile, N)# sub'ittedits 3/aluation Report according to which, Guisande is co'petent to stand the rigorsof court trial.

    ence, the petition for re/iew on certiorari.7uring the pendency of these consolidated cases, /arious e/ents occurred

    which ulti'ately led to the incident before this )ourt. Public respondent udgeordered the dis'issal of )ri'inal )ase for Oualified heft against Guisande. 0n /iewof such dis'issal, udge acla contends that the cases for issuance of the writs ofhabeas corpus and a'paro and the petition for re/iew on certiorari should bedis'issed for ha/ing been rendered 'oot and acade'ic.

    0--;3( /7E87ER 87E PE8I8I5N %5R 7AEAS #5RP1S S75163 E 3ISMISSE3 %5R7A;IN EEN REN3ERE3 M558 AN3 A#A3EMI#

    3A7(he petition should be dis'issed. he petition for the writs of habeas corpus

    and a'paro was based on the cri'inal case for Oualified heft against petitioner-os daughter, Guisande.

    here is no affir'ation of petitioner -o=s clai' that the confine'ent ofaccused Guisande at the N)# was illegal. Neither were the respecti/e actsperfor'ed by respondents udge acla and 7r. icente in ascertaining the 'entalcondition of accused Guisande to withstand trial declared unlawful. 8n the contrary,the N)#, a well5reputed go/ern'ent forensic facility, albeit not held in high regardby petitioner -os and accused Guisandes fa'ily, had assessed Guisande fit for trial.

    he Rules on the rits of abeas )orpus and $'paro are clear@ the act oro'ission or the threatened act or o'ission co'plained of 5 confine'ent andcustody for habeas corpus and /iolations of, or threat to /iolate, a persons life,liberty, and security for a'paro cases 5 should be illegal or unlawful.

    he 'ost basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that theindi/idual seeBing such relief is illegally depri/ed of his freedo' of 'o/e'ent orplace under so'e for' of illegal restraint. 0f an indi/idual=s liberty is restrained /ia

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    22/39

    Page 22of 39

    so'e legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is una/ailing. unda'entally, in orderto ?ustify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, the restraint of liberty 'ust be inthe nature of an illegal and in/oluntary depri/ation of freedo' of action.

    hile habeas corpus is a writ of right, it will not issue as a 'atter of course oras a 'ere perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition. udicial discretion iscalled for in its issuance and it 'ust be clear to the ?udge to who' the petition is

    presented that, pri'a facie, the petitioner is entitled to the writ. 0t is only if thecourt is satisfied that a person is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty will thepetition for habeas corpus be granted. 0f the respondents are not detaining orrestraining the applicant of the person in whose behalf the petition is filed, 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. 0naddition, it was procedurally proper for the R) to asB the N)# for a separateopinion on accused=s 'ental fitness 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 confined in a ?ail facility, 'uch less at

    the N)#. 3ffecti/ely, accused Guisande=s person, and treat'ent of any 'edicaland 'ental 'alady she 'ay or 'ay not ha/e, can no longer be sub?ected 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 defined as Mone that ceases to present a ?usticiable contro/ersy by /irtueof super/ening e/ents, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or/alue.M

    rit o# .a/eas Corp%s Not proper pending Special Ciil

    *ction #or Certiorari /e#ore t&e Co%rt o# *ppeals @t&

    Diision!

    onifacio under the custody of the

    Philippine #arines. $ petition for bail was filed by the accused soldiers which the

    R) subsequently granted. 7espite of the order and the ser/ice thereof, petitioners

    were not released. $s a response, the People of the Philippines 'o/ed for partial

    reconsideration of the order granting bail. ith the denial of the #otion for Partial

    Reconsideration, the People filed with the )ourt of $ppeals on 4 ebruary !""+ a

    special ci/il action for certiorari under Rule 6+ of the Rules of )ourt with urgent

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    23/39

    Page 23of 39

    prayer for e'porary Restraining 8rder R8: andEor rit of Preli'inary 0n?unction.

    #oreo/er, since Gon2ales and #esa continued to be in detention, a Petition

    for abeas )orpus was filed by petitioner Pulido on their behalf. 0n response,

    Respondents prayed that the Petition for abeas )orpus be dis'issed pri'arily on

    two grounds( 1: the continued detention of Gon2ales and #esa is ?ustified because

    of the pendency of the Petition for )ertiorari questioning the order dated * uly!""4 of the R) granting bail to Gon2ales and #esa before the &th 7i/ision of the

    )ourt of $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 7i/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 7i/ision.

    eld(

    No. hat the present petition has direct and inti'ate linBs with the certiorari

    case is beyond doubt as they in/ol/e two sides of the sa'e coin. he certiorari case

    filed by the People seeBs 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 filed in

    behalf of Gon2ales and #esa to secure their i''ediate release because the order

    granting bail is already e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    24/39

    Page 2+of 39

    rit o# .a/eas Corp%s Section + o# R%le 102* detention preio%sl inalid /eco"es alid %pon t&e

    application6 iss%ance o# t&e ;rit o# .a/eas Corp%s denied!

    N8R.

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    25/39

    Page 2,of 39

    under in/estigation by their superiors is not a for' of illegal detention or restraint ofliberty.

    Restricti/e custody is, at best, no'inal restraint which is beyond thea'bit of ha$eascorpus. 0t is neither actual nor effecti/e restraint that would call forthe grant of the re'edy prayed for. 0t is a per'issible precautionary 'easure toassure the PNP authorities that the police officers concerned are always accounted

    for.0n su', petitioner is unable to discharge the burden of showing that she is

    entitled to the issuance of the writ prayed for in behalf of her husband, P81$'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

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    26/39

    Page 2of 39

    Farapatan or else so'ething bad will happen to her and her fa'ily. -o'eti'e after

    her release, Roernas,

    Mco''and responsibility,M in its si'plest ter's, 'eans the Mresponsibility of

    co''anders for cri'es co''itted by subordinate 'e'bers of the ar'ed

    forces or other persons sub?ect to their control in international wars or

    do'estic conflict.M 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/oBed 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 ?udicial relief consisting

    of the appropriate re'edial 'easures and directi/es that 'ay be crafted by

    the court, in order to address specific /iolations or threats of /iolation of the

    constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. hile the principal ob?ecti/e of

    its proceedings is the initial deter'ination of whether an enforced

    disappearance, e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    27/39

    Page 2@of 39

    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 identityand affiliation of the perpetrators. 7irect 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 offers greater

    certainty as to the true identity and affiliation 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 8ffer of 3

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    28/39

    Page 2of 39

    order that the supporting allegations of a party be sufficient in itself, so as to

    'aBe 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 'aBe out a pri'a facie case that she was detained in ort

    #agsaysay, an inspection of the 'ilitary ca'p cannot be ordered. $n

    inspection order cannot issue on the basis of allegations that are, inthe'sel/es, unreliable and doubtful.

    e. he writ of habeas data was conceptuali2ed as a ?udicial 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 control

    infor'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. >olante

    and Paula >. >ringas and a resident since birth of >angued, $bra@

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    29/39

    Page 29of 39

    !. hat per records in the 8ffice of the #unicipal )i/il Registrar, >angued, $bra, her

    registered na'e is Roselie 3loisa >ringas >olante which na'e, as far as she can

    re'e'ber, she did not use but instead the na'e #aria 3loisa >ringas >olante@

    %. hat the na'e #aria 3loisa appears in all her school as well as in her other public

    and pri/ate records@ 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

    ?urisdictional 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

    8rder gi/ing respondent fi/e +: days within which to file a written for'al offer ofe/idence to establish ?urisdictional facts and set the presentation of e/idence

    proper on #arch !6, !""1.

    8n une +, !""1, the branch clerB of court, acting upon the trial courts

    e-$N0$A )8#PA0$N)3 0 -3). %,

    R;A3 1"% 8 3 R;A3- 8 )8;R 0- -;0)03N 8 3- 3 R0$A )8;R 0

    ;R0-70)08N 8 $F3 )8GN0Q$N)3 8 3 P3008N $ O;8.

    00. 33R 8R N8 R3-P8N73N- >$R3 3-0#8N, ;N-;PP8R37 >

    $N 83R 3073N)3, 0- -;0)03N 8 PR83 $ 3 )$NG3 8 3R N$#3

    0- N8 R3-8R37 8R 0AA3G$A P;RP8-3-.

    R;A0NG(

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    30/39

    Page 30of 39

    0. 3-. here is a substantial co'pliance with -ec. %, Rule 1"% of the rules of

    court with respect to the ?urisdictional require'ents of notice and publication in

    Petition for )hange of Na'e.

    -ections ! and %, Rule 1"% of the Rules of )ourt prescribe the procedural and

    ?urisdictional require'ents for a change of na'e. 0n Republic /. on. udge of>ranch 000 of the )0 of )ebu, citing pertinent ?urisprudence, non5co'pliance with

    these require'ents would be fatal to the ?urisdiction 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 /erified 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 fide resident of the pro/ince where

    the petition is filed for at least three %: years prior to the date of such filing@

    b: he cause for which the change of the petitioners na'e is sought@

    c: he na'e asBed for.

    -3). %. 8rder for hearing. 5 0f the petition filed is sufficient in for' and

    substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fi< 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 weeB for three %: successi/e weeBs in

    so'e newspaper of general circulation published in the pro/ince, U. he date set

    for the hearing shall not be within thirty %": days prior to an election nor withinfour 4: 'onths after the last publication of the notice. ;nderscoring added.:

    $s gleaned fro' the records, the basic petition for change of na'e was filed

    on 8ctober 1*, !""" and set for hearing on ebruary !", !""1. he notice of

    hearing was published in the No/e'ber !%, and %", !""" and 7ece'ber &, !"""

    issues of the Norlu2onian )ourier. )ounted fro' the last day, 7ece'ber &, !""", of

    publication of the 8rder, the initial hearing scheduled on ebruary !", !""1 is

    indeed within the four5'onth prohibited period prescribed under -ection %, Rule

    1"% of the Rules. he )ourt, as did the )$, 'ust e'phasi2e, howe/er, that the trial

    court, e/idently upon reali2ing the error co''itted respecting the 45'onth

    li'itation, lost no ti'e in rectifying its 'istaBe by rescheduling, with due notice toall concerned, the initial hearing for se/eral ti'es, finally settling for -epte'ber !+,

    !""1.

    0n the conte

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    31/39

    Page 31of 39

    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.

    $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 ob?ection as to the genuineness,

    authenticity, rele/ancy or sufficiency of the eut beyond practicalities, si'ple ?ustice dictates that e/ery person shall be

    allowed to a/ail hi'self of any opportunity to i'pro/e his social standing, pro/ided

    he does so without causing pre?udice or in?ury to the interests of the -tate or of

    other people.

    he 8-Gs argu'ent that respondents bare testi'ony is insufficient to show

    that the requested na'e is not sought for any illegal purpose andEor in a/oidance of

    any entangle'ent with the law deser/es scant consideration. -urely, the issuance

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    32/39

    Page 32of 39

    of a police and N>0 clearance or liBe certification, while perhaps apropos,cannot, as

    the 8-G suggests, be a con/incing nor' of ones good 'oral character or

    co'pelling e/idence to pro/e that the change of na'e is not sought for any e/il

    'oti/e or fraudulent intent. Respondents open court testi'ony, gi/en under pain of

    per?ury and for which she was cross5eranch 6&, then presided by udge )esar #. -otero

    who co'pulsorily retired on !% ebruary !""6.

    he audit tea' noticed that there were no special proceedings case recordspresented. ;pon inquiry, the )lerB of )ourt Paulino -aguyod asserted that 'ost of

    these cases are for Petitions for )orrection of 3ntries in the )i/il Registry and ga/e

    the audit tea' copies of the decisions.

    he audit tea' obser/ed that al'ost all of the petitions ha/e no hearings

    conducted and that the date of filing indicated in the docBet booBs and the date of

    the decision was so near that it will be i'probable to co'ply with the publication

    require'ent under the Rules of )ourt.

    0n /iew of these obser/ations, the udge -otero and )lerB of )ourt -aguyod

    were 'ade to e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    33/39

    Page 33of 39

    .eld

    7uring 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 first na'e or

    nicBna'es, yet there was no 'ention that such petition can no longer be filed with

    the regular courts. here was no intent on the part of the law'aBers to re'o/e theauthority of the trial courts to 'aBe ?udicial corrections of entries in the ci/il

    registry. 0t can thus be concluded that the local ci/il registry has pri'ary, not

    eorn in #aBati on -epte'ber 9, 19&!, ulian 3dward 3'erson )oseteng

    #agpayo respondent: is the son of ul/io #. #agpayo r. and $nna 7o'inique

    #arque25Ai' )oseteng who, as respondent=s certificate of li/e birth shows,

    contracted 'arriage on #arch !6, 19&!.

    )lai'ing, howe/er, that his parents were ne/er legally 'arried, respondent

    filed on uly !!, !""* at the Regional rial )ourt R): of Oue2on )ity a Petition

    to change his na'e to ulian 3dward 3'erson #arque2 Ai' )oseteng. he petition,

    docBeted as -PP No. O5"*6%"+*, was entitled M0N R3 P3008N 8R )$NG3 8

    N$#38 ;A0$N 37$R7 3#3R-8N )8-33NG #$GP$8 8 ;A0$N 37$R73#3R-8N #$RO;3Q5A0# )8-33NG.M

    0n support of his petition, respondent sub'itted a certification fro' the

    National -tatistics 8ffice stating that his 'other $nna 7o'inique Mdoes not appear

    in IitsJ National 0ndices of #arriage.D Respondent also sub'itted his acade'ic

    records fro' ele'entary up to college showing that he carried the surna'e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    34/39

    Page 3+of 39

    M)oseteng,M and the birth certificate of his child where M)osetengM appears as his

    surna'e. 0n the 199*, !""1 and !""4 3lections, respondent ran and was elected as

    )ouncilor of Oue2on )ity=s %rd 7istrict using the na'e M;A0$N #.A. )8-33NG.M

    8n order of >ranch && of the Oue2on )ity R), respondent a'ended his

    petition by alleging therein co'pliance with the %5year residency require'ent under-ection !, Rule 1"%J 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 8ctober %15No/e'ber 6,

    !""*, No/e'ber &51%, !""*, and No/e'ber 145!", !""*. $nd a copy of the notice

    was furnished the 8ffice of the -olicitor General 8-G:.

    No opposition to the petition ha/ing been filed, an order of general default

    was entered by the trial court which then allowed respondent to present e/idence

    e< parte

    >y 7ecision of anuary *, !""9, the trial court granted respondent=s petitionand directed the )i/il Registrar of#aBati )ity to(

    1. 7elete the entry M#arch !6, 19&!M in 0te' !4 for M7$3 $N7 PA$)3 8 #$RR0$G3

    8 P$R03-M Iin herein respondent=s )ertificate of li/e >irthJ@

    !. )orrect the entry M#$GP$8M in the space for the Aast Na'e of the IrespondentJ

    to M)8-33NGM@

    %. 7elete the entry M)8-33NGM in the space for #iddle Na'e of the IrespondentJ@

    and

    4. 7elete the entry Mul/io #iranda #agpayo, r.M in the space for $3R of the

    IrespondentJU e'phasis and underscoring supplied@ capitali2ation in the original:

    he Republic of the Philippines Republic: filed a 'otion for reconsideration

    but it was denied by the trial court by 8rder of uly !, !""9, hence, it, thru the 8-G,

    lodged the present petition for re/iew to the )ourt on pure question of law.

    0--;3(

    1. hether or not the petition for change of na'e in/ol/ing change of ci/ilstatus should be 'ade through appropriate ad/ersarial proceedings.

    !. hether or not the trial court e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    35/39

    Page 3,of 39

    no showing that the desired change of na'e was for a fraudulent purpose

    or that the change of na'e would pre?udice public interest.

    VVV Respondent=s reason for changing his na'e cannot be

    considered as one of, or analogous to, recogni2ed grounds, howe/er.

    he present petition 'ust be differentiated fro' $lfon /. Republic

    of the Philippines. 0n $lfon, the )ourt allowed the therein petitioner,

    3strella $lfon, to use the na'e that she had been Bnown since childhood

    in order to a/oid confusion. $lfon did not deny her legiti'acy, howe/er.

    -he 'erely sought to use the surna'e of her 'other which she had been

    using since childhood. Ruling in her fa/or, the )ourt held that she was

    lawfully entitled to use her 'other=s surna'e, adding that the a/oidance

    of confusion was ?ustification enough to allow her to do so. 0n the present

    case, howe/er, respondent denies his legiti'acy.

    he change being sought in respondent=s petition goes so far as to

    affect his legal status in relation to his parents. 0t seeBs to change his

    legiti'acy to that of illegiti'acy. Rule 1"% then would not suffice to grant

    respondent=s supplication.

    Aabayo5Rowe /. Republic categorically holds that Mchanges which

    'ay affect the ci/il status fro' legiti'ate to illegiti'ate . . .

    are substantial and contro/ersial alterations which can only be allowed

    after appropriate ad/ersary proceedings . . .M

    VVVVVVVV -ince respondent=s desired change affects his ci/il status

    fro' legiti'ate to illegiti'ate, Rule 1"* applies. 0t reads(

    -3)08N 1. ho 'ay file petition.$ny person interested in any

    act, e/ent, order or decree concerning the ci/il status of persons which

    has been recorded in the ci/il register, 'ay file a /erified petition for

    the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the IR)J

    of the pro/ince where the corresponding ci/il registry is located.

    -3). %. Parties.hen cancellation or correction of an entry in the

    ci/il register is sought, the ci/il registrar and all persons who ha/e or

    clai' any interest which would be affected thereby shall be 'ade parties

    to the proceeding.

    -3). 4. Notice and publication. T;pon the filing of the petition, the

    court shall, by an order, fi< the ti'e and place for the hearing of the

    sa'e, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be gi/en to the persons

    na'ed in the petition. he court shall also cause the order to be published

    once a weeB for three %: consecuti/e weeBs in a newspaper of general

    circulation in the pro/ince. e'phasis, italics and underscoring supplied:

    !. Rule 1"* clearly directs that a petition which concerns one=s ci/il status

    should be filed in the ci/il registry in which the entry is sought to be

    cancelled or corrected T that of #aBati in the present case, and Mall

    persons who ha/e or clai' any interest which would be affected therebyM

    should be 'ade parties to the proceeding.

    $s earlier stated, howe/er, the petition of respondent was filed not

    in #aBati where his birth certificate was registered but in Oue2on )ity.

    $nd as the abo/e5'entioned title of the petition filed by respondent

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    36/39

    Page 3of 39

    before the R) shows, neither the ci/il registrar of #aBati nor his father

    and 'other were 'ade parties thereto.

    Rule 1"% regarding change of na'e and in Rule 1"* concerning the

    cancellation or correction of entries in the ci/il registry are separate and

    distinct.

    $side fro' i'proper /enue, he failed to i'plead the ci/il registrar

    of #aBati and all affected parties as respondents in the case.M$ petition

    for a substantial correction or change of entries in the ci/il registry should

    ha/e as respondents the ci/il registrar, as well as all other persons who

    ha/e or clai' to ha/e any interest that would be affected thereby.M

    Rule 1"* clearly 'andates two sets of notices to different Mpotential

    oppositors.M he first notice is that gi/en to the Mpersons na'ed in the

    petitionM and the second which is through publication: is that gi/en to

    other persons who are not na'ed in the petition but nonetheless 'ay be

    considered interested or affected parties, such as creditors. hat two sets

    of notices are 'andated under the abo/e5quoted -ection 4 is /alidated by

    the subsequent -ection +, also abo/e5quoted, which pro/ides for two

    periods for the two types of Mpotential oppositorsM: within which to file an

    opposition 1+ days fro' notice or fro' the last date of publication:.

    he purpose precisely of -ection 4, Rule 1"* is to bind the whole

    world to the subsequent ?udg'ent on the petition. he sweep of the

    decision would co/er e/en parties who should ha/e been i'pleaded under

    -ection %, Rule 1"* but were inad/ertently left out

    C&ange o# Stat%s *lien Spo%se #ailed to co"pl on t&e

    %risdictional Re7%ire"ent

    $ER?ERT CORP8 =S! D*'>N STO! TO*S

    G.R. No. 1*6+&1, $ugust 11, !"1"

    $)-(

    Gerbert )orpu2 was a for'er ilipino citi2en who acquired )anadian

    citi2enship through naturali2ation on No/. !""". 8n, an. 1* !""+, he 'arried a

    ilipina na'ed 7aisylyn -to. o'as. 7ue to worB and other professional

    co''it'ents, Gerbert left for )anada soon after their wedding. e returned to the

    Philippines so'eti'e in $pril !""+ to surprise her wife but was shocBed to disco/er

    that 7aisylyn was ha/ing an affair with another 'an. urt and disappointed,

    Gerbert went bacB to )anada and filed a petition for di/orce and was granted.

    wo years after, Gerbert fell in lo/e with another ilipina. 0n his desire to

    'arry his new ilipina fiancWe, Gerbert went to Pasig )ity )i/il Registry 8ffice and

    registered the )anadian di/orce decree on their 'arriage certificate. 7espite its

    registration, an N-8 official infor'ed Gerbert that their 'arriage still e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    37/39

    Page 3@of 39

    R) denied Gerbert=s petition contending that $rt. !6 !: applies only to

    ilipinos and not to aliens. Gerbert appealed by certiorari to the -upre'e )ourt

    under Rule 4+.

    0--;3(

    hether the registration of the foreign di/orce decree was properly 'ade.

    3A7(

    -upre'e )ourt held in the negati/e. $rticle 41! of the )i/il )ode declares

    that Cno entry in a ci/il register shall be changed or corrected, without ?udicial

    order.D he Rules of )ourt supple'ents $rticle 41! of the )i/il )ode by specifically

    pro/iding for a special re'edial proceeding by which entries in the ci/il registry 'ay

    be ?udicially cancelled or corrected. Rule 1"* of the Rules of )ourt sets in detail the

    ?urisdictional and procedural require'ents that 'ust be co'plied with before a

    ?udg'ent, authori2ing the cancellation or correction, 'ay be annotated in the ci/il

    registry.

    0. R8'E 1036 106 R* 90+ Disting%is&ed

    REP8?'

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    38/39

    Page 3of 39

    he 8-G ti'ely appealed praying for the re/ersal and setting aside of the

    R) decision. or the 8-G, the correction in the spelling of #ercadera=s gi/en na'e

    Mis in truth a 'aterial correction as it would 'odify or increase substanti/e rightsM,

    which would ha/e been proper had she filed a petition under Rule 1"% and pro/ed

    any of the grounds therefor.

    he )$ was not persuaded. 0n its 7ece'ber 9, !""* 7ecision, the appellate

    court affir'ed the questioned R) order.

    8n #arch 6, !""9, the 8-G filed the present petition. 8n behalf of #ercadera,

    the Public $ttorney=s 8ffice P$8: filed its )o''ent on uly %, !""9.

    0--;3-(

    33R 8R N8 3 )8;R 8 $PP3$A- 3RR37 8N $ O;3-08N 8 A$ 0N

    GR$N0NG 3 )$NG3 0N R3-P8N73N=- N$#3 ;N73R R;A3 1"%.

    3A7(

    Rule 1"% procedurally go/erns ?udicial petitions for change of gi/en na'e or

    surna'e, or both, pursuant to $rticle %&6 of the )i/il )ode. his rule pro/ides the

    procedure for an independent special proceeding in court to establish the status of

    a person in/ol/ing his relations with others, that is, his legal position in, or with

    regard to, the rest of the co''unity. 3ssentially, a change of na'e does not define

    or effect a change of one=s e

  • 7/24/2019 not mine. copyright to the owner

    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 8-G and the Aocal )i/ilRegistry are sufficient indicia of an ad/erse proceeding. )onsidering that the 8-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 7ece'ber 9, !""* 7ecision

    of the )ourt of $ppeals is $0R#37.