You are on page 1of 5

Rule 101 Section 4

CHIN AH FOO (alias CHAN FOO WOO) and YEE SHEE (alias YEE SUI YENG), widow of Chin Ah Kim, petitioners, vs. PEDRO CONCEPCION, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and LEE VOO, respondents.

Facts Judge of the Court of first Instance acquitted a man charged with murder on the plea of insanity, and has ordered the confinement of the insane person in an asylum, subsequently permitting the same to leave the asylum without the acquiescence of the Director of Health. Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code discloses that the permission of the court who orders the confinement of one accused of a grave felony in an insane asylum is a prerequisite for obtaining release from the institution by the Director of Health. Section 1048 of the Administrative Code grants the Director of Health authority to say when a patient may be discharged from an insane asylum. Article 8 of the Penal Code has not been impliedly repealed by section 1048 of the Administrative Code.

Issue Whether or not a judge who ordered the confinement of an insane person in an asylum may permit the same to leave the asylum without the opinion of the Director of Health.

Ruling No. The Director of Health is without power to release, without proper judicial authority, any person confined by order of the court in an asylum pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Penal Code. Conversely, any person confined by order of the court in an asylum in accordance with article 8 of the Penal Code cannot be discharged from custody until the views of the Director of Health have been ascertained as to whether or not the person is temporarily of permanently cured or may be released without danger

Rule 102 Habeas Corpus Moncupa v. Enrile G.R. 63345 Facts: Petitioners were arrested and detained on the allegation that they were members of a subversive organization. Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss after the petitioner was temporarily released from detention on the ground that the petition for habeas corpus may be deemed moot and academic since the petitioner is free and no longer under the respondents custody. Petitioner argues that his temporary release did not render the instant petition moot and academic because of the restrictions imposed by the respondents which constitute an involuntary and illegal restraint on his freedom.

Issue Whether or not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus becomes moot and academic in view of the detained persons release with restrictions. Ruling No. Restraints attached to temporary release of a detained person warrant the Supreme Courts inquiry into the nature of the involuntary restraint and relieving him of such restraints as may be illegal. Reservation of the military in the form of restrictions attached to the detainees temporary release constitutes restraints on the liberty of the detainee. It is not physical restraint alone which is inquired into by the writ of habeas corpus. Temporary release of detainee from detention with involuntary restraints does not render the petition for writ of habeas corpus moot and academic. It is available where a person continue to be unlawfully denied of one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is denial of due process, where the restraints are not merely involuntary but are necessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has later become arbitrary.

Rule 103 Section 1 G.R. No. L-20874 May 25, 1966

IN RE PETITION FOR THE CHANGE OF NAME OF JOSELITO YU. JOSELITO YU, represented by his guardian ad litem, JUAN S. BARRERA, petitioner and appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellee. Facts In the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Joselito Yu, represented by his guardian ad litem Juan S. Barrera, filed a petition to have his name changed to Ricardo Sy. Petitioner avers in his petition that he is a minor of 13 years, and a Chinese citizen who has been a resident of Manila for more than three years prior to the filing of the petition. As grounds for the change of name he alleges that as far as he can remember has been using the name "Ricardo Sy," that he grew up under the care and custody of Juan Sy Barrera, his guardian ad litem; that he is enrolled in school under the said name and that he was baptized "Ricardo Sy with his real name also stated." Without a hearing being had, the court motu propio dismissed the petition on the ground that Rule 103 of the Revised Rules of Court may not be invoked by aliens. Issue Whether or not an alien may petition the court for change of name Ruling Rule 103 does not say that only citizens of the Philippines may petition for a change of name.2 Section 1 provides that "a person desiring to change his name shall present the petition to the Court of First Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in the City of Manila to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court." Here the word "person" is a generic term which is not limited to Filipino citizens, but embraces all natural persons. The rule does not even require that the citizenship of the petitioner be stated in his petition. It is enough that the petition be verified, signed by the petitioner or some other person in his behalf, and set forth (a) that the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at least

three (3) years prior to the date of filing; (b) the cause for which the change of name is sought; and (c) the name asked for (Section 2). The rule is clear and affords no room for interpretation. It sets forth all the requirements, and Filipino citizenship is not one of them.

Rule 104 National Abaca vs. Pore G.R. No. L-16779; August 16, 1961 FACTS: Plaintiff National Abaca Corporation filed a complaint against Pore for the recovery of a sum of money advanced to her for the purchase of hemp. She moved to dismiss the complaint by citing the fact that National Abaca had been abolished by EO 372 dated Nov. 24, 1950. Plaintiff objected to such by saying that it shall nevertheless be continued as a corporate body for a period of 3 years from the effective date of said order for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or against it and to enable the Board of Liquidators to close its affairs. Issue Whether or not an action commenced within 3 years after the abolition of plaintiff corporation be continued by the same after the expiration of said period? HELD: The Corporation Law allows a corporation to continue as a body for 3 years after the time when it would have been dissolved for the purposes of prosecuting and defending suits by or against it. But at any time during the 3 years, the corporation should convey all its property to trustees so that the latter may be the ones to continue on with such prosecution, with no time limit on its hands. Since the case against Pore was strong, the corporations amended complaint was admitted and the case was remanded to the lower court.

Rule 108 MARIANO WONG, in his own behalf and as guardian-adlitem of the minors; MARIANO WONG JR., AUDREY WONG and RICHARDSON WONG, petitioners-appellees,

vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE ILOILO CITY LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR, respondents, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent- appellant. Facts On February 29, 1968, Mariano Wong, in his own behalf and as guardian of his minor children, namely, Mariano, Jr., Audrey and Richardson, all surnamed Wong, filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, a verified petition for the correction of their nationality from "Filipino" to "Chinese" in the Iloilo City Civil Registrar alleging that: That on April 25, 1959, petitioner Mariano Wong got married to Ma. Sylvia Gustilo, a Filipino citizen in the City of Iloilo, Philippines, that in the marriage contract, the citizenship of the petitioner Mariano Wong is Filipino when in truth and in fact he is a Chinese citizen; That in the certificate of births of the aforesaid minor children, namely: Mariano Wong, Jr., Audrey Wong and Richardson Wong as appearing in the records of the local civil registrar, Iloilo City, Philippines, certified true copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes 'C', 'D' and 'E', respectively of this petition, their nationality as well as the nationality of the father, petitioner Mariano Wong were registered as Filipinos, when in truth and in fact they are Chinese citizens; Lower court granted the petition. The Republic appealed. Issue Whether or not correction of entry as to nationality in appearing in the birth certificate may be corrected through rule 108 or non adversarial proceedings. Ruling No. entries which can be corrected under the summary procedure contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code, as implemented by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, refer to those mistakes that are clerical in nature or changes that are harmless and innocuous, such as the correction of a mispelled name or occupation of the parents, 8 or those that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, or "errors made by a clerk or transcriber, a mistake in copying or writing." Errors involving substantial and controversial matters such as those which affect the civil status or the nationality or citizenship of persons cannot be corrected under said summary proceedings, but should be threshed out in an appropriate action wherein the State as well as persons who may be affected by the change should be notified or represented