Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
00 SpecPro Finals

00 SpecPro Finals

Ratings: (0)|Views: 219|Likes:
Published by Janz Serrano
under Prof. dela Cerna 2nd sem AY '11-'12
under Prof. dela Cerna 2nd sem AY '11-'12

More info:

Published by: Janz Serrano on Apr 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





 Special Proceedings Finals reviewer Prof. C. de la Cerna2
Semester A.Y. 2011-2012
 Janz Hanna Ria N. Serrano 
Special thanks to Amin, Cha, Krizel and Vien for the case digests/doctrines 
Rule 72
Meaning and scope of special proceedings
Rule 1, Sec 3(c)
. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
Vda. de. Manalo v. CA
. It is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averments and the characterof the relief sought in the complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be controlling. A careful scrutiny of the Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-
63626 belies herein petitioners’ claim that the same is in the nature of an
ordinary civil action. The said petition contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate of a deceased personsuch as the fact of death of the late Troadio Manalo on February 14, 1992, as well as his residence in the City of Manila at the time of his said death.The fact of death of the decedent and of his residence within the country are foundation facts upon which all the subsequent proceedings in theadministration of the estate rest. The petition in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 also contains an enumeration of the names of his legal heirs including atentative list of the properties left by the deceased which are sought to be settled in the probate proceedings
Natcher v. CA
. An action is a formal demand of one's right in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the methodof applying legal remedies according to definite established rules. The term "special proceeding" may be defined as an application or proceeding toestablish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are required unless the statuteexpressly so provides. In special proceedings, the remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion."Distinguished from civil action
Rule 2, Sec. 1
Ordinary Civil Actions, basis of.
Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action
Rule 2, Sec. 2
Cause of action, defined 
A Cause of Action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of anotherB.
Importance of Procedural Rules
Republic v. Kenrick Dev’t Corp
. Procedural rules are [tools] designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus[enjoined] to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress,was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve alitigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. 
 In this case,respondent failed to show any persuasive reason why it should be exempted from strictly abiding by the rules.C.
Applicability of Rules of Civil Action
Rule 72, Sec. 2
 Applicability of rules of civil actions
In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as faras practicanle, applicable in special proceedings
Rule 35
Matute v. CA
. In fact, even without the respondent's reservation, it was the bounden duty of the probate judge to schedule the presentation andreception of the respondent's evidence before disposing of the case on the merits because only the movants at that time had presented theirevidence. This duty is projected into bolder relief if we consider, which we must, that the aforesaid motion is in form as well as in substance a
demurrer to evidence
allowed by Rule 35, by virtue of which the defendant does not lose his right to offer evidence in the event that his motion isdenied. Said Rule states: After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant 
without waiving his right to offer evidencein the event the motion is not granted 
, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.(emphasis supplied)
The application of the abovecited Rule in special proceedings, like the case at bar, is authorized by section 2 of Rule 72which direct that in the "absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary civil actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable inspecial proceedings."II.
Settlement of Estate of Deceased PersonRule 73
Venue and Process
Sec. 1
Where estate of deceased persons settled 
If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or analien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which gheresides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate. Thecourt first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. Thejurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contestedin a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.
Sec. 2
Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage
When the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the communityproperty shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceasedspouse. If both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either.
Sec. 3
In the exercise of probate jurisdiction, Courts of First Instance may issue warrants and process necessary to compel the attendanceof witnesses or to carry into effect their orders and judgments, and all other powers granted them by law. If a person does not perform an order orjudgment rendered by a court in the exercise of its probate jurisdiction, it may issue a warrant for the apprehension and imprisonment of suchperson until he performs such order or judgment, or is released.
Sec. 4
Presumption of Death
For purposes of settlement of his estate, a person shall ve presumed dead if absent and unheard from for the periodsfixed in the Civil Code. But if such person proves to be alive, he shall be entitled to the balance of his estate after payment of all his debts. Thebalance may be recovered by motion in the same proceeding.A.
Eusebio v. Eusebio
. Following Rule 75, Sec. 1 (now Rule 73, Sec.1),
“If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time
of his death,whether a citizens or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death xxx.
Although it is true that shortly before his death Andres bought a house in QC and began
moving his belongings from San Fernando thereto, the SC found that there was no clear showing of Andres’s intention to change
domicile. Theevidence weighed by the CFI Rizal actually proved that Andres still considers San Fernando as his true domicile and that he was moving to QC onlyfor medical purposes without definite intention (
) to change the same. Moreover, there is a presumption in law
changes of domicile.In other words, there is a presumption in favor of the continuance of an existing domicile. Therefore, the burden of proving a change of domicile lieson those who alleged that a change has occurred. Failing this, and absent any evidence of intention/animus, it is to be presumed that the party hasretained the last domicile known to have been possessed by him. This follows from the principle that a domicile acquired is retained until another isgained.
Fule v. CA
. The place of residence of the deceased in settlement of estates, probate of will, and issuance of letters of administration merelyconstitute venue. Since the last place of residence of Amado was at Quezon City, and
at Calamba, Laguna, the venue for Fule's petition for lettersof administration was improperly laid in the CFI of Calamba. ||
The word "resides" in Section 1, Rule 73 referring to the situs of the settlement of the estate of deceased persons, means actual residence
Malig v. Bush
. On jurisdiction issue, court said that Rule 75 Sec. 1 (now R73S1)
really concerns venue, and in order to preclude different courts which may properly assume jurisdiction from doing so, the Rule specifies that "the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the
exclusion of all other courts.”
In the final analysis
this action is not necessarily one to annul the partition already made and approved by the probate court, and to reopen the estate proceeding so that a new partition may be made, but for recovery by the plaintiffs of the portion of their alleged inheritance of which, through fraud, they have been deprived.
Rodriguez v. Borja
The Bulacan Court of First Instance was entitled to priority in the settlement of the estate in question and the intestateproceedings in the Rizal Court should be discontinued. The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan became vested upon the deliverythereto of the will of the late Father Rodriguez on March 4, 1963, even if no petition for its allowance was filed until later.
 Special Proceedings Finals reviewer Prof. C. de la Cerna2
Semester A.Y. 2011-2012
 Janz Hanna Ria N. Serrano 
Special thanks to Amin, Cha, Krizel and Vien for the case digests/doctrines 
Cuenco v. CA
. The court with whom the petition is first filed, must also
 first take cognizance of the settlement of the estate
in order to
exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of all other courts
, such court, may upon learning that a petition for
of the decedent's last willhas been presented in another court where the decedent obviously had his conjugal domicile and resided with his surviving widow and their minorchildren, and that the allegation of the
petition before it stating that the decedent died
may be actually false, may
decline to takecognizance
of the petition and hold the petition before it in abeyance, and instead defer to the second court which has before it the petition for
of the decedent's alleged last will.
De Borja v. Tan
. The powers and functions of a
administrator are quite limited. Under Rule 81, section 1, a special administrator isappointed only when there is a delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by an appeal from allowance or disallowanceof a will or from any other cause, and such special administrator is authorized to collect and take charge of the estate until the questions causing thedelay are decided and an executor or administrator thereon appointed || Further, under Rule 87 section 8, a special administrator is also appointedwhen the regular executor or administrator has a claim against the estate he represents and said special administrator shall have the same powerand subject to the same liability as a regular executor or administrator || In other words, a special administrator is appointed only for a limited timeand for a specific purpose. Naturally, because of the temporary and special character of his appointment, it was deemed by the law not advisable forany party to appeal from said temporary appointment. On the other hand, a co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises allthe powers of a regular administrator, only that he is not alone in the administration|| Taking into consideration the circumstances obtaining in thiscase, that petitioner Francisco though originally designated administrator, is and has for several years been one only due to his physical and mentaldisability, as a result of which respondent Jose de Borja is now practically the sole administrator there is no question that for all practical and legalpurposes the appointment of Jose de Borja as co-administrator is equivalent to and has the same effect as a sole regular or general administrator. Inview of the foregoing, the appointment of a co-administrator is appealable. The petition for
is granted and respondent Judge is herebydirected to approve the record on appeal and to give due course to the appeal
Macias v. Uy Kim
. Any challenge to the validity of a will, any objection to the authentication thereof, and every demand or claim which any heir,delegate or party in interest in a testate or intestate succession may make, must be acted upon and decided within the same special proceedings,not in a separate action, and the same judge having jurisdiction in the administration of the estate shall take cognizance of the question raised,inasmuch as when the day comes he will be called upon to make distribution and adjudication of the property to the interested partiesB.
Dissolution of Marriage
Bernardo v. CA
. While as a general rule, probate court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the title of the properties, this case falls under theexception, which is:
when the parties interested are all heirs of the deceased, it is optional to them to submit to the probate court a questionas to title to property, and when so submitted, said probate court may definitely pass judgment thereon
; and that with the consent of theparties, matters affecting property under judicial administration may be taken cognizance of by the court in the course of intestate proceeding,provided interests of third persons are not prejudiced
Falcatan v. Sanchez
. In proceedings for the summary settlement of the estate of a deceased person under section 2, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court,the court has no jurisdiction to pass upon the question of title to real property is
true only where the title is disputed by a third person, not bythe surviving spouse or heirs of the deceased, as successors of the latter
Ermac v. Medelo
. The policy of the law is to terminate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons with the least loss of time.This is specially true with small estates for which the rules provide precisely a summary procedure dispensing with the appointment of anadministrator together with the other involved and cumbersome steps ordinarily required in the determination of the assets of the deceased andthe persons entitled to inhirit therefrom and the payment of his obligations. Definitely, the probate court is not the best forum for the resolution of 
adverse claims of ownership of any property ostensibly belonging to the decedent’s estate.
While there are settled exceptions to this rule asapplied to regular administration proceedings,
it is not proper to delay the summary settlement of a deceased person just because anheir or a third person claims that certain properties do not belong to the estate but to him.
Such claim must be ventilated in anindependent action, and the probate court should proceed to the distribution of the estate, if there are no other legal obstacles to it, forafter all, such distribution must always be subject to the results of the suit. For the protection of the claimant the appropriate step is tohave the proper annotation of lis pendens entered.PCIB v. Escolin
. As a rule, upon the death of a spouse, properties continue to be conjugal property in the hands of the surviving spouse. But it isprovided in the Civil Code that upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership, an inventory shall immediately be made and in the event of thedeath of the wife, the law imposes upon the husband the duty of liquidating the affairs of the partnership without delay ||
Under Section 2 of Rule
73, “When the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the community property shall be inventoried, adminis
tered, andliquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the
conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either.” Indeed, it is true that the last 
sentence of thisprovision allows or permits the conjugal partnership of spouses who are both deceased to be settled or liquidated in the testate orintestate proceedings of either, but precisely because said sentence allows or permits that the liquidation be made in either proceeding,it is a matter of sound judicial discretion in which one it should be made.Calma v. Tañedo
. Eulalio (husband) having ceased as legal administrator of the conjugal property had with his wife, no complaint can be brought against him for the recovery of an indebtedness chargeable against said conjugal property, and that the action should be instituted in thetestamentary proceedings of the deceased in the manner provided by law, by filing it first with the committee on claims.
Ocampo v. Potenciano
. The Court of Appeals erred in supposing that the surviving spouse had such authority as de facto administrator of theconjugal estate. As pointed out by appellants, the decisions relied on by that court in support of its view are now obsolete. Those decisions laiddown the rule that, upon the dissolution of the marriage by the death of the wife, the husband must liquidate the partnership affairs.
But theprocedure has been changed by Act No. 3176 (approved on November 24, 1924), now section 2, Rule 75, of the Rules of Court, whichprovides that when the marriage is dissolved by the death of either husband or wife, the partnership affairs must be liquidated in thetestate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse
Jurisdiction of Probate Court 
See also Rule 90, Sec. 1
Reyes v. Ysip
The order of the court did not amount to a prohibition to the petitioner to take part in the hearing for the probate of the will and wasmotivated by a desire to avoid a multiplicity of the issues thereat and the limitation thereof to the execution and the validity of the execution of thewill. The court, therefore, did not deprive the petitioner of any right which she is entitled to under the law or rules, nor did it abuse its discretion inrefusing the submission of evidence as to filiation in the hearing for the probate. Considerations of convenience and expediency, therefore, support the ruling of the court in
refusing to admit evidence of petitioner's filiation and postponing the same at a later stage in the distributionproceedings.Torres v. Javier
. Section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that letters of administration should be granted, first, to the surviving husbandor wife; second, to other relatives in the order named; third, in case the surviving wife or next of kin or person selected by them be unsuitable, theadministration may be granted to some other person, such as one of the principal creditors; and fourth, if there is no such creditor competent andwilling to serve, the administration may go to such person as the court may appoint.
Borromeo-Herrera v. Borromeo
. The prevailing jurisprudence on waiver of hereditary rights is that 
“the properties included in an existing
inheritance cannot be considered as belonging to third persons with respect to the heirs, who by fiction of law continue the personality of the former.Nor do such properties have the character of future property, because the heirs acquire a right to succession from the moment of the death of thedeceased, by principle established in article 657 and applied by article 661 of the Civil Code. According to which the heirs succeed the deceased by themere fact of death. More or less, time may elapse from the moment of the death of the deceased until the heirs enter into possession of the hereditary  property, but the acceptance in any event retroacts to the moment of the death, in accordance with article 989 of the Civil Code. The right is vested,
although conditioned upon the adjudication of the corresponding hereditary portion.” 
The heirs, therefore, could waive their hereditary rightsin 1967 even if the order to partition the estate was issued only in 1969.
Morales v. CFI
. A probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to propertiesclaimed to be a part of the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the said court could do as regards said
 Special Proceedings Finals reviewer Prof. C. de la Cerna2
Semester A.Y. 2011-2012
 Janz Hanna Ria N. Serrano 
Special thanks to Amin, Cha, Krizel and Vien for the case digests/doctrines 
properties is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by theadministrator.
Heirs of Oscar Reyes v. Reyes
. Probate court ruled that Arayat property be included in the inventory, SUBJECT to the outcome in the regularcourts of whoever really owns it. SC says probate court was correct in not ruling on the title of the property, since probate court is with limitedjurisdiction. Exception to the general rule does not apply in this case.
Cunanan v. Amparo
. Court has jurisdiction to order the delivery of the possession of the lots to the estate. This power is a mere consequence of thepower to approve Soriano's claim; a power which the court undoubtedly had.
Valera v. Inserto
. As regards the first issue, settled is the rule that a Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court), acting as a Probate Court,exercises but limited jurisdiction, and thus has no power to take cognizance of and determine the issue of title to property claimed by a thirdperson adversely to the decedent, unless the claimant and all the Other parties having legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly,to the submission of the question to the Probate Court for adjudgment, or the interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced. The reason forthe exception being that the question of whether or not a particular matter should be resolved by the Court in the exercise of its general jurisdictionor of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is in reality not a jurisdictional but in essence of procedural one, involving a mode of practice whichmay be waived. The facts obtaining in this case, however, do not call for the application of the exception to the rule.
It was at all times clear to theCourt as well as to the parties that if cognizance was being taken of the question of title over the fishpond, it was not for the purpose of settling the issue definitely and permanently, and writing "
s" thereto, the question being explicitly left for determination "in anordinary civil action," but merely to determine whether it should or should not be included in the inventory.
This function of resolvingwhether or not property should be included in the estate inventory is, to be sure, one clearly within the Probate Court's competence, although theCourt's determination is only provisional in character, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action that may be institutedby the parties.
Dinglasan v. Ang Chia
. . SC held that the TC's taking cognizance of the Civil Case is not assuming jurisdiction but merely a recognition and makes of record its existence considering that the property in litigation is involved in said proceedings and in fact is the ONLY property of the estate left subject of administration and distribution
Ortañez-Enderes v. CA
. It is admitted that the special proceedings are still pending before the court and the estate had not been partitioned anddistributed. Notwithstanding the proceedings being conducted by the intestate court, the petitioners' rights or interests over the estate or over theassailed shareholdings in the name of respondents are still future and unsettled rights which cannot be protected by the writ of injunction. Thejurisdiction of the regional trial court as a probate or intestate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate andprobate of will of deceased persons but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The court in charge of the intestate proceedings cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are equallyclaimed to belong to outside parties.D.
Presumption of death,
Sec. 3-4
CC, 391
. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs:(1)
A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since theloss of the vessel or aeroplane;(2)
A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years;(3)
A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years.
CC, 392
. If the absentee appears, or without appearing his existence is proved, he shall recover his property in the condition in which it may befound, and the price of any property that may have been alienated or the property acquired therewith; but he cannot claim either fruits or rents.
Rule 74
Summary Settlement of EstatesSec. 1.
Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. -
If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors arerepresented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of administration,divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree,they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filedin the office of the register of deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending action forpartition, or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file, simultaneously with and as a conditionprecedent to the filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a bondwith the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as certified to under oath by the partiesconcerned and conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed under Section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent.The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in thenext succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.
Sec. 2.
 Summary settlement of estates of small value. -
Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased person, whether he died testate orintestate, does not exceed ten thousand pesos, and that fact is made to appear to the Court of First Instance having jurisdiction of the estate by thepetition of an interested person and upon hearing, which shall be held not less than (1) month nor more than three (3) months from the date of thelast publication of a notice which shall be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province,and after such other notice to interested persons as the court may direct, the court may proceed summarily, without the appointment of an executoror administrator, and without delay, to grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any there be, to determine who are the persons legally entitled toparticipate in the estate, and to apportion and divide it among them after the payment of such debts of the estate as the court shall then find to be due;and such persons, in their own right, if they are of lawful age and legal capacity, or by their guardians or trustees legally appointed and qualified, if otherwise, shall thereupon be entitled to receive and enter into the possession of the portions of the estate so awarded to them respectively. The court shall make such order as may be just respecting the costs of the proceedings, and all orders and judgments made or rendered in the course thereof shall be recorded in the office of the clerk, and the order of partition or award, if it involves real estate, shall be recorded in the proper register's office.
Sec. 3.
Bond to be filed by distributees.
The court, before allowing a partition in accordance with the provisions of the preceding section, mayrequire the distributees, if property other than real is to be distributed, to file a bond in an amount to be fixed by court, conditioned for the payment of any just claim which may be filed under the next succeeding section.
Sec. 4.
Liability of distributees and estate. -
If it shall appear at any time within two (2) years after the settlement and distribution of an estate inaccordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawfulparticipation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided forthe purpose of satisfying such lawful participation. And if within the same time of two (2) years, it shall appear that there are debts outstandingagainst the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, thecourt having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and orderhow much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances require, against thebond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond and such real estate shall remaincharged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two (2) years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made.
Sec. 5.
Period for claim of minor or incapacitated person. -
If on the date of the expiration of the period of two (2) years prescribed in the precedingsection the person authorized to file a claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated, or is in prison or outside the Philippines, he may present his claimwithin one (1) year after such disability is removed.A.
Extra-judicial settlement by agreement between heirs,
Secs. 1, 4, 5.
Substantive requirements2.
Procedural requirements

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->