special proceedings recentn digested cases

8/13/2019 Special Proceedings Recentn Digested Cases

1/34

Page 1of 34

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 the appointment 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

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

4! Esc&eat

a. 3scheat Proceeding( Proper Party and )iti2enship of the owner

of the property to be escheated.


2/34

Page 2of 34

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 by case study reportsmade 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"*, 198ctober !"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 )orpus denied.-ection 4 of Rule 1"!:

Ampatuan vs" &udge ;irgilio ;" Macaraig, G.R. No.1*!49&, !9 une !"1"

/! rit o# *"paro and a.eas Data

a. )o''and Responsibility


3/34


4/34

Page 4of 34

*! SETT'E:ENT O; EST*TE O; DECE*SED PERSON

Pro.ate o# t&e 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


5/34


6/34

Page ,of 34

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'entof his estate, or the 'anage'ent of the estate only. < < >>, since she was ?ust a few 'onths old. >>> 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 siernardo 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!.


17/34

Page 1/of 34

Si"%lation o# @irt& Penalt o# a p%.lic o##icer == o# Do"estic *doption *ct R%les on Ciil Serice

*pplied*non"o%s s! 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 3ci?a, for dishonesty and falsification of a public

docu'ent.

8n 6 #arch !""&, the 8ffice of the )ourt $d'inistrator 8)$: recei/ed an anony'ous

co'plaint charging respondent with falsification 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 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'ed respondent 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.

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 e


18/34

Page 1of 34

punishable by dis'issal, the fact that this is respondent=s first offense 'ay be considered a

'itigating circu'stance in her fa/or. he law requires that the 'itigating circu'stance 'ust first

be pleaded by the proper party. >ut in the interest of substantial ?ustice, 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


19/34

Page 1of 34

he petition should be dis'issed. he petition for the writs of habeas corpus anda'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 of accusedGuisande at the N)# was illegal. Neither were the respecti/e acts perfor'ed by respondentsudge acla and 7r. icente in ascertaining the 'ental condition of accused Guisande to

withstand trial declared unlawful. 8n the contrary, the N)#, a well5reputed go/ern'entforensic facility, albeit not held in high regard by 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 or o'ission orthe threatened act or o'ission co'plained of 5 confine'ent and custody for habeas corpus and/iolations of, or threat to /iolate, a persons life, liberty, and security for a'paro cases 5 shouldbe illegal or unlawful.

he 'ost basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that the indi/idualseeBing such relief is illegally depri/ed of his freedo' of 'o/e'ent or place under so'e for' ofillegal restraint. 0f an indi/idual=s liberty is restrained /ia so'e legal process, the writ of habeascorpus is una/ailing. unda'entally, in order to ?ustify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, therestraint of liberty 'ust be in the 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 or as a 'ere

perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition. udicial discretion is called for in its issuanceand it 'ust be clear to the ?udge to who' the petition is presented that, pri'a facie, thepetitioner is entitled to the writ. 0t is only if the court is satisfied that a person is being unlawfullyrestrained of his liberty will the petition for habeas corpus be granted. 0f the respondents are notdetaining or restraining 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 which hospital,the N)# or a 'edical facility of accused=s own choosing, accused Guisande should bereferred for treat'ent of a supposed 'ental condition. 0n addition, it was procedurally proper forthe R) to asB the N)# for a separate opinion on accused=s 'ental fitness to be arraigned

and stand trial.)ertainly, with the dis'issal of the non5bailable case against accused Guisande, 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 'edical and 'ental 'alady she 'ay or 'aynot ha/e, can no longer be sub?ected to the lawful processes of the R) #andaluyong )ity. 0nshort, the cases ha/e now been rendered '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!

=n t&e "atter o# t&e Petition #or a.eas Corp%s o# CE*R= $ON*'ES and 9'=9S

:ES*

RO@ERTO R*;*E' P9'=DO s! $en! E;REN *@97 as C&ie# o# Sta## o# t&e *r"ed ;orces

o# t&e P&ilippines and all persons acting in &is stead and %nder &is a%t&orit7 and $EN!

ERNESTO DE 'EON7 in &is capacit as t&e ;lag O##icer in Co""and o# t&e P&ilippine

Na7 and all persons acting in &is stead and %nder &is a%t&orit7 respondents!

G.R. No. 1&"9!4, uly 4, !""&

acts(

0n line with their participation in the C8aBwood #utinyD that led to Pres. Gloria #acapagal

$rroyo=s issuance of Procla'ation No. 4!& declaring the country to be under a Mstate ofrebellionD and General 8rder No. 4 directing the $P and the PNP to carry out all reasonable

'easures, gi/ing due regard to constitutional rights, to suppress and quell the Mrebellion.M,

petitioners were taBen into custody by their -er/ice )o''ander. Gon2ales and #esa were not

charged before a court 'artial with /iolation of the $rticles of ar. hey were, howe/er, a'ong

the soldiers charged before >ranch 61 of the Regional rial )ourt R): of #aBati )ity, with the

cri'e of )oup 7=etat as defined under $rticle 1%45$ of the Re/ised Penal )ode. hey were


20/34

Page 20of 34

consequently detained in ort >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 prayerfor 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 specialci/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


21/34

Page 21of 34

rit o# a.eas Corp%s Section 4 o# R%le 102* detention preio%sl inalid .eco"es alid %pon t&e application7

iss%ance o# t&e =R$='=O >! :*C*R*=$

G.R. No. 1*!49&, !9 une !"1"

P3R3Q, .(

$)-($tty. $lioden 7. 7alaig, ead of the )8#3A3) Aegal 7epart'ent, was Billed at the

corner of #. . 7el Pilar and Pedro Gil -treets, 3r'ita, #anila. 0n/estigation conducted by the#anila Police 7istrict o'icide -ection yielded the identity of the 'ale perpetrator as P81$'patuan. )onsequently, P81 $'patuan was co''anded to the #P7 7istrict 7irector forproper disposition. AiBewise, inquest proceedings were conducted by the #anila Prosecutor=s8ffice.

On 1 *pril 2007 Police -enior -uperintendent Guinto, rendered his Pre5)harge3/aluation Report against P81 $'patuan, finding probable cause to charge P81 $'patuan

with Gra/e #isconduct #urder: and reco''ending that said P81 $'patuan be sub?ected tosu''ary hearing.

:ean


22/34


23/34

Page 23of 34

denied. 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 ofwhether an enforced disappearance, eluntly stated, the abductors were


24/34

Page 24of 34

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 taBen to ort #agsaysay was not adequately

established by her 'ere esti'ate of the ti'e it tooB to reach the place where she was

detained and by the sounds that she heard while thereat. AiBe the )ourt of $ppeals, the

-upre'e )ourt are not inclined to taBe the esti'ate and obser/ations of the petitioner as

accurate on its facenot only because they were 'ade 'ostly while she was inblindfolds, but also in /iew of the fact that she was a 'ere so?ourner 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 taBen to ort #agsaysay re'ains a 'ere speculation.

c. 0n an order directing the public respondents to return the personal belongings of 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 fiut perhaps the

'ore funda'ental reason in denying the prayer of the petitioner, lies with the fact that aperson=s right to be restituted of his property is already subsu'ed under the general

rubric of property rightswhich are no longer protected by the writ of a'paro. -ection 1

of the $'paro Rule, which defines the scope and e


25/34

Page 2+of 34

considerations, the directi/e by the )ourt of $ppeals en?oining the public respondents

fro' Mdistributing or causing the distribution to the public any records in whate/er for',

reports, docu'ents or si'ilar papersM relati/e to the petitioner=s Malleged ties with the

)PP5NP$,M appears to be de/oid of any legal basis. he public respondents cannot be

ordered to refrain fro' distributing so'ething that, in the first place, it was not pro/en to

ha/e.

$! R%le 103 C&ange o# Na"e %risdiction and S%##icienc o#Eidence

ROSE'=E E'O=S* @R=N$*S @O'*NTE a!5!a! :*R=* E'O=S* @R=N$*S @O'*NTE

G.R. No. 16"+9&, uly !", !""6

$)-($ petition for change of na'e was co''enced by respondent Roselie 3loisa >ringas

>olante also Bnown as #aria 3loisa >ringas >olante on 8ctober 1*, !""".

0n her petition before the R), respondent alleged, a'ong other things, the following(

1. hat she is a ilipino, of legal age, 'arried, born to spouses loriano >. >olante and Paula >.

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

!. 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 of e/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


26/34

Page 2,of 34

8n cross she stated that the purpose of filing the petition is that, she wanted to secure a

passport and wanted that the sa'e be issued in her correct na'e and that she would not ha/e

filed the petition was it not for the passport. 8n clarificatory question by the )ourt she said that

her reason in filing the petition is her reali2ation that there will be a co'plication upon her

retire'ent.

8n anuary !%, !""!, the trial court rendered ?udg'ent granting the basic petition.

0n ti'e, the Republic, through the 8-G, went to the )ourt of $ppeals and the latter

affir'ed the decision of the trial court.

0--;3-(

0. 33R 8R N8 R3-P8N73N- -;>-$N0$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(

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 within four 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 8ctober1*, !""" 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


27/34


28/34

Page 2of 34

he i'perati/es of a/oiding confusion dictate that the instant petition is granted. >ut

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 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 records presented.

;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


29/34

Page 2of 34

hether the su''ary procedure prescribed in R$ No. 9"4* should be adopted in cases filed

before the courts, or should the proceeding under Rule 1"* be followed.

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 the authority 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$R7 3#3R-8N #$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 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


30/34


31/34

Page 31of 34

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 thea/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 interestwhich 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 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.

$side fro' i'proper /enue, he failed to i'plead the ci/il registrarof #aBati and all affected parties as respondents in the case.M$ 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


32/34


33/34

Page 33of 34

REP9@'=C O; TE P='=PP=NES s! :ER'?N :ERC*DER*

G.R. No. 1*6"!&, 7ece'ber *, !"1"

$)-( 8n une 6, !""+, #erlyn #ercadera #ercadera:, represented by her sister and duly

constituted $ttorney5in5act, 3/elyn #. 8ga 8ga:, sought the correction of her gi/en na'e as it

appeared in her )ertificate of Ai/e >irth fro' #arilyn A. #ercadera to #erlyn A. #ercadera

before the 8ffice of the Aocal )i/il Registrar of 7ipolog )ity pursuant to Republic $ct No. 9"4*.

;nder R.$. No. 9"4*, the city or 'unicipal ci/il registrar or consul general is now

authori2ed to effect the change of first na'e or nicBna'e and the correction of clerical or

typographical errors in ci/il registry entries. he 8ffice of the Aocal )i/il Registrar of 7ipolog

)ity, howe/er, refused to effect the correction unless a court order was obtained Mbecause the

)i/il Registrar therein is not yet equipped with a per'anent appoint'ent before he can /alidly

act on petitions for corrections filed before their office as 'andated by R.$. No. 9"4*.M

#ercadera then filed a Petition or )orrection of -o'e 3ntries as $ppearing in the

)ertificate of Ai/e >irth under Rule 1"* before the Regional rial )ourt of 7ipolog )ity R):.

;pon receipt of the petition for correction of entry, the R) issued an order, dated une 1",

!""+, for the hearing of said petition. he 8ffice of the -olicitor General 8-G: deputi2ed the

8ffice of the )ity Prosecutor to assist in the case. ithout any ob?ection fro' the )ity

Prosecutor, the testi'ony of 8ga and se/eral photocopies of docu'ents were for'ally offered

and 'arBed as e/idence to pro/e that #ercadera ne/er used the na'e M#arilynM in any of her

public or pri/ate transactions.

0n its -epte'ber !*, !""+ 7ecision, the R) granted the petition and ruled that thedocu'entary e/idence presented by #ercadera sufficiently supported the circu'stances

alleged in her petition. )onsidering that she had used M#erlynM as her gi/en na'e since

childhood until she disco/ered the discrepancy in her )ertificate of Ai/e >irth, the R) was

con/inced that the correction was ?ustified.

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 courtaffir'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


34/34

special proceedings recentn digested cases

Documents