Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Spec Pro Digests Case 1-13 (1)

Spec Pro Digests Case 1-13 (1)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 692 |Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Published by: Sui on Aug 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Feb. 13, 2008; J. Velasco, Jr.
Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA
Rombe is a corp. organized and existing under Philippine laws with its mainoffice in Mandaluyong. It owns real properties in Malolos, Bulacan. It is representedby the spouses Romeo and Marrionette Peralta.In 2002, Rombe filed a Petition for the Declaration of a State of Suspension of Payments with Approval of Proposed Rehab. Plan with RTC.On May 3, 2002, RTC issued a Stay Order in accordance with Interim Rules of Procedure on Corp Rehab (IRPCR), Rule 4, Section 6.SEC, BPI, Asiatrust opposed the petition.RTC dismissed the case on September 24, 2002, due to1.)Rombe misrepresented materially its true financial status
a.)Did not submit audited f/sb.)Made it appear that it had sufficient assets to pay its outstanding obligations, but whenexamined were registered with other persons and only 2 were unencumberedc.)Mis-declared the value of its assetsd.)Gave only general references to the location of the properties without mention of thebook values nor condition of the properties in its Inventory of Assetse.)Did not attach evidence of title or ownership to the properties enumeratedf.)Did not attach nor provide a Schedule of A/R, indicating amount of each, maturitydates, degree of collectivity,g.)Had not complied with its reportorial duty to file Gen. Info Sheet and F/S from 1992-1995 and 2002, which its F/S 1999-2000 were filed lateh.)B/S claimed it had receivables but did not indicate nature, basis and other information
2.)Did not have a feasible Rehab Plan3.)Was Insolvent.Rombe did not appeal.Instead, anticipating the foreclosure, it filed a Complaint for Annulment of Documentsand Damages with Prayer for a TRO and Injunction against Asiatrust and the Sheriff,which was granted.CA reversed, lifting the preliminary injunction, ground: the Order of Dismissal in theRehab Proceedings.
1.WON the rehabilitation case is distinct and dissimilar from the annulment of theforeclosure case (Nature, Purpose, Reliefs Sought)?Yes
WON the injunctive writ issued in the annulment of foreclosure interfered with theSept. 24, 2002 Order in the rehab case?No, it did not.
Rehab – special proceeding – summary and non-adversarial in nature-defn.Rule 1Section 3(c.) one that seeks to establish the status of a party or a particular fact-the status or fact sought to be established is the inability of the corp debtor to pay its debts when they fall due so that a rehab plan, containing theformula for the successful recovery of the corporation, may be approved inthe end.-No COA.-Governed by special rules, in this case A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC Sept. 4, 2001IRPCR-Annulment of Foreclosure – civil action – def’n. Rule 1 S3.(a.) One by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of aright or the prevention or rederess of a wrong.-The COA in this case is the act of Asiatrust in foreclosing the mortgage onRombe’s properties by which the latter’s right to the properties was allegedlyviolated;-Also to annul the unilateral increase in interest rate by Asiatrust-Rule 2
Section 2. Cause of Action
– act or omission by which a party violates aright of another.-Governed by regular rules of procedure under 1997 Rules of Civil ProcedureFurthermore, upon the Annulment of Foreclosure Proceedings, there was no rehabcase pending before any court to speak of, being dismissed already.
RTC to conduct further proceedingsin the civil case with dispatch.
SPEC PRO - - - - - 2
SEM SY 2008-2009 - - - - PROF. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. LEE 1
Nov. 29, 1976; J. Martin
Petitions for review of the decision of the CA
On April 26, 1973 Amado G. Garcia died, he owned property in Calamba, Laguna.On May 2, 1973, Virginia G. Fule field with CFI Laguna a petition for letters of administration and ex parte appointment as special administratix over the estate.Motion was granted.(there was an allegation that the wife was Carolina Carpio)Preciosa B. Garcia, wife of deceased, and in behalf of their child: Agustina B. Garciaopposed, which was denied by CFI.(Preciosa alleged that Fule was a creditor of the estate, and as a mere illegitimatesister of the deceased is not entitled to succeed from him
)CA reversed and annulled the appointment of Fule.Preciosa became special administratrix upon a bond of P30k.
 a.)Venue v. jurisdictionb.)What does the word “residesin Revised Rules of Court Rule 73 Section 1Mean?c.)Who is entitled?
:a.)RULE 73SECTION 1. “if the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of hisdeath, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled at the CFI in the province in whichhe resides at the time of his death,And if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the CFI of any province in which hehad estate.The court 1
taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shallexercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
NCC Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestado from the legitimatechildren and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in thesame manner from the illegitimate child.
The jurisdiction 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 proceedings, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case,or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.”Fule’s own submitted Death Certificate shows that the deceased resided in QC at thetime of his death, therefore the
of Laguna was improper.Venue is subject to waiver (RULE 4 SECTION 4), but Preciosa did not waive it,merely requested for alternative remedy to assert her rights as surviving spouse.However, venue is distinct from
which is conferred by Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended to be with CFIs independently from the place of residence of thedeceased.RULE 79SECTION 2, demands that the petition should show the existence of jurisdiction tomake the appointment sought, and should allege all the necessary facts such asdeath, name, last residence, existence, situs of assets, intestacy, right of person whoseeks administration as next of kin, creditor or otherwise to be appointed. b.)Resides – ex vi termini “actual residence”-Elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of thestatute or rule in which it is employed.-Same meaning as “inhabitant”.-Popular sense – the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person,actual residence or place of abode-Must be more than temporaryDistinguished from“legal residence or domicile” – requires bodily presence and an intention to makeit one’s domicile.c.)Preciosa is prima facie entitled to the appointment of special administratrix.The New Rules RULE 80 SECTION 1 broadened the basis for appointment of 
special administrator 
to take possession and charge of the estates of the deceased until the questions causing the delay are decided and (regular)executors or administrators appointed.Old rules basis ay: appeal of allowance of disallowance of a will;New: added - “xxx
in granting letters testamentary or of administration
by anycause
(includes parties cannot agree among themselves) including an appeal of allowance of disallowance of a will, the court may appoint a xxx”
SPEC PRO - - - - - 2
SEM SY 2008-2009 - - - - PROF. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. LEE 2
The discretion to appoint a special administrator or not is with the probate court, theparamount consideration is the beneficial interest of the appointee in the estate of thedecedent.In re: Fule, it is not required that the administratrix be entitled to share in the estate of the decedent – only that one is entitled to the administration;but the preference of Preciosa is with sufficient reason – the widow would have theright of succession over a portion of the exclusive property of the decedent, besidesher share in the conjugal partnership.For such reason, she would have as such, if not more, interest in administering theentire estate correctly than any other next of kin.
: Fule’s petition DENIED.
RULE 80SECTION 2. Powers and Duties of Special Administrator 
May 29, 2002; J. Ynares-Santiago
Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA
Spouses Ignacio Jao Tayag and Andrea V. Jao, decedents, had 2 sons:Rodolfo and Perico Jao.Perico Jao instituted a petition for issuance of letters of administration with request for appointment of special administrator before RTC QC, alleging that his brother isdissipating the assets of the estate.Rodolfo opposed claiming that their parents resided at Angeles, Pampanga, that their staying with him due to their medical treatments and hospitalization were transitory.Rodolfo cited Eusebio V. Eusebio, et. al. (1956), wherein the decedent was from SanFernando, Pampanga, suffering from a heart ailment, and purchased a house in QCto be nearer to his doctor, died and the Court held that the situs of the settlementproceedings was at his domicile;and differentiated between:Venue in ordinary civil actions-RULE 4SECTION 2. Venue of Personal Actions. All other actions may becommenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffsreside, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant, where he may be found, at theelection of the plaintiff.V.Venue in Special Proceedings-RULE 73SECTION 1.-that domicile is where the records of the properties are kept and where mostof the properties of the decedents are located;Death Certificate entry by Rodolfo was that the spouses last resided with him in QC.RTC designated J. Carlos L. Sundiam as special administrator of the estate.CA dismissed Rodolfo’s petition for certiorari.
Where should the settlement proceedings be had?
RULE 73SECTION 1.Clearly provides where the decedent resides at the time of his death.Eusebio is not applicable in the case at bar, because there, he was in the process of transferring his personal belongings to his new QC house and died before he couldmove therein.Here their parents lived with Rodolfo for 3-4 years before they died.Plus Ignacio died a year before Andrea, but Rodolfo did not correct the entry in their mother’s death certificate either.In Raymond V CA (1988) and Bejer V CA (1989), SC held that venue for ordinary civilactions and for special proceedings have one and the same meaning.The contention is non-sequitur.Death certificates are admissible in evidence and were properly considered andpresumed to be correct by the court a quo.SC cited Garcia-Fule V. CA as to the term “resides”.Factual findings substantiated by evidence are conclusive and binding.
SPEC PRO - - - - - 2
SEM SY 2008-2009 - - - - PROF. SAN PEDRO MARY ANN JOY R. LEE 3

Activity (14)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Zandro Steve liked this
Emerson Balgos liked this
Leslie Octaviano liked this
iciamadarang liked this
Leslie Octaviano liked this
junmiguel liked this

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)//-->