Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos
--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--
Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Based on the discussion on January 22, 2018
Basic Questions:
1.) What is Special Proceedings?
2.) Distinguish Special Proceedings from Ordinary Civil Action.
3.) What are the requirements of extrajudicial settlement of estate
to be valid?
4.) As a rule, probate court has no power to rule issue of ownership. a semblance of it - except the allegations that they are the legal
What are the exceptions to this rule?
5.) What are the different modes of settling the estate?
6.) What is the remedy of one of the heirs who was not included in
the extrajudicial settlement of estate?
SPOUSES DOMINADOR MARCOS
vs
HEIRS OF ISIDRO BANGI
G.R. No. 185745 October 15, 2014
Principle: On general principle, independent and in spite of the
statute of frauds, courts of equity have enforced oral partition
when it has been completely or partly performed.
Regardless of whether a parol partition or agreement to partition
is valid and enforceable at law, equity will in proper cases, where
the parol partition has actually been consummated by the taking
of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership by the
parties of the respective portions set off to each, recognize and
enforce such parol partition and the rights of the parties
thereunder. Thus, it has been held or stated in a number of cases
involving an oral partition under which the parties went into
possession, exercised acts of ownership, or otherwise partly
performed the partition agreement, that equity will confirm such
partition and in a proper case decree title in accordance with the
possession in severalty.
It has been ruled that oral partition is effective when the parties
have consummated it by the taking of possession in severalty and
the exercise of ownership of the respective portions set off to each.
Question: What is the nature of the estate of a deceased person?
Answer: It is a creation of law to enable disposition of assets to be
properly made (Limjoco vs Intestate of Fragrante, 80 Phil. 776).
“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”
HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY
vs
HON. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO
G.R. No. 124320. March 2, 1999
Principle: But the plaintiffs who claimed to be the legal heirs of the
said Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay have not shown any proof or even
heirs of the aforementioned Yaptinchays - that they have been
declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple. Now, the
determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple
must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in
an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. This must take
precedence over the action for reconveyance.
In Litam, etc., et. al. v. Rivera, this court opined that the declaration
of heirship must be made in an administration proceeding, and not
in an independent civil action.
FACTS: In this case, the heirs filed a civil action for recovery of
ownership of a parcel of land. However, there was no showing that
they have established their status as an heir.
ISSUE: Should the heirs establish first their status as an heir?
RULING: Yes.
The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased
couple must be made in the proper special proceedings in court,
and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. This must
take precedence over the action for reconveyance.
GENERAL RULE: The RTC or MTC, acting as a probate court, is a
court of LIMITED JURISDICTION. Therefore, matters brought before
it during a probate or settlement proceeding, which are alien to
said to said proceeding and which are matters proper for an RTC or
MTC as a court of general jurisdiction to decide, cannot be acted
upon by a probate court.
EXCEPTIONS:
(a) The question of ownership of property de decided upon by the
probate court if the conflicting claimants as owners are all heirs of
the decedent and they all agree to submit the question of
ownership for determination by the probate court.
(b) During the process of inventory of the property of the estate of
the decedent, in order to determine whether or not certain
properties be included in such inventory, as belonging to the
Page 1
 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
decedent’s estate, the probate court may decide prima facie the and testament she executed in California, she designated her
ownership of said properties. brother, as the executor of her will. She left properties in the
Philippines and in the U.S. Another brother of Ruperta filed a
petition for probate of the will of Ruperta in the RTC so that he
CYNTHIA C. ALABAN may also be appointed as special administrator for her estate. The
vs nephews of Ruperta, on the other hand, opposed and claimed as
COURT OF APPEALS one of their grounds that his will should not be probated in the
G.R. No. 156021 September 23, 2005 Philippines but in the U.S where she executed it.

Principle: According to the Rules, notice is required to be
personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the
testator. A perusal of the will shows that respondent was
instituted as the sole heir of the decedent. Petitioners, as nephews
and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate
heirs who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings
under the Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention
petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personally notify them
of the same.
ISSUE: Should the will executed by a foreigner be probated in the
Philippines?
RULING: Yes.
Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by
foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been
probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. A foreign
will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction.

Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so

notified, the purported infirmity is cured by the publication of the Question: What are the two stages of probate of a will?
notice. After all, personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of Answer: These are:
procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite. (a) FIRST PHASE – The probate court will determine the EXTRINSIC
validity of the will.
The non-inclusion of petitioners names in the petition and the (b) SECOND PHASE – The probate court will inquire into the
alleged failure to personally notify them of the proceedings do not INTRINSIC validity of the provision of the will.
constitute extrinsic fraud. Petitioners were not denied their day in
court, as they were not prevented from participating in the
proceedings and presenting their case before the probate court. EDGAR SAN LUIS
vs
NOTE: Any administration upon the estate of a living person (not FELICIDAD SAN LUIS
presumed dead) is VOID. G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL
OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS
G.R. No. 169144 January 26, 2011
Principle: But our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills
executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet
been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. A
foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816
of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is abroad
produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or
according to the formalities observed in his country.
Principle: We find that the latter has the legal personality to file
the subject petition for letters of administration, as she may be
considered the co-owner of Felicisimo as regards the properties
that were acquired through their joint efforts during their
cohabitation.
Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court states that letters of
administration may be granted to the surviving spouse of the
decedent. However, Section 2, Rule 79 thereof also provides in
part:
SEC. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. – A
petition for letters of administration must be filed by an interested
person and must show, as far as known to the petitioner: x x x.

FACTS: Ruperta, who is a Filipino, who became a naturalized An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be
United States (U.S.) citizen, died single and childless. In the last will benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 2

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
against the estate, such as a creditor. The interest must be
material and direct, and not merely indirect or contingent.
In the instant case, respondent would qualify as an interested
person who has a direct interest in the estate of Felicisimo by
virtue of their cohabitation, the existence of which was not
denied by petitioners. If she proves the validity of the divorce and
Felicisimo’s capacity to remarry, but fails to prove that her
marriage with him was validly performed under the laws of the
U.S.A., then she may be considered as a co-owner under Article
144 of the Civil Code. This provision governs the property
relations between parties who live together as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void from the
beginning. It provides that the property acquired by either or both
of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries
shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In a co-ownership,
it is not necessary that the property be acquired through their
joint labor, efforts and industry. Any property acquired during the
union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through
their joint efforts. Hence, the portions belonging to the co-owners
shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proven.
FACTS: It was established in this case that the man married thrice.
The first wife died. The second one, an American citizen, divorced
him. The third wife filed a petition for administration. The children within the period prescribed, otherwise, the same shall be deemed
of the first wife objected, arguing that the marriage between them
is viod, since at the time they were married, the second wife was
still alive. Hence, the marriage between them was still valid.
ISSUE: Is the third wife qualified to file for letters for
administration?
RULING: Yes.
NOTE: The administration of the estate in the country where he
died a resident – Domiciliary administration.
Administration of the estate situated in another country –
Ancillary administration.
Based on the discussion on January 24, 2018
Questions:
1.) Are clerk of courts qualified to be appointed as administrators of
estate of decedents?
2.) What are the instances when a special administrator may be
appointed?
3.) What is the Statute of Non-claims?
4.) What is Tardy Claim?
ESTATE OF AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE
vs
HONORABLE MANASES G. REYES
G.R. No. L-29407 July 29, 1983
Principle: Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, provides that
"no action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or
interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or
administrator; ..." The claim of private respondent SAMCO being
one arising from a contract may be pursued only by filing the same
in the administration proceedings in the Court of First Instance of
Manila (Sp. Proc. No. 25876) for the settlement of the estate of the
deceased Amadeo Matute Olave; and the claim must be filed
"barred forever." (Section 5, Rule 86, Rules of Court).
The purpose of presentation of claims against decedents of the
estate in the probate court is to protect the estate of deceased
persons. That way, the executor or administrator will be able to
examine each claim and determine whether it is a proper one
which should be allowed. Further, the primary object of the
provisions requiring presentation is to apprise the administrator
and the probate court of the existence of the claim so that a
proper and timely arrangement may be made for its payment in
full or by pro-rata portion in the due course of the administration,
inasmuch as upon the death of a person, his entire estate is
burdened with the payment of all of his debts and no creditor shall
enjoy any preference or priority; all of them shag share pro-rata in
the liquidation of the estate of the deceased.

Question: What is the collective name given to the provisions of

Sec. 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court fixing a period for the filing of
claims against the estate of a decedent, and if not filed within said
period, are barred?
Answer: These are called the STATUTE OF NON-CLAIMS (Santos vs
Manarang, 27 Phil 209).

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 3

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SERAFIN MEDINA UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs vs
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS EDMUND SANTIBAEZ
G.R. No. L-34760 September 28, 1973 G.R. No. 149926. February 23, 2005

Principle: The Court does not look with favor on such practice of
clerks of court or other court employees being appointed as
administrators of estates of decedents pending settlement before
the probate court. The objectivity and impartiality of such clerks of
court or other employees so appointed as administrators in
discharging their regular functions may be easily compromised by
extraneous considerations. Furthermore, because of the
administrator's fees and compensation payable to them, it is not
inconceivable that self-interest intrudes and consciously or
unconsciously, obstacles are placed against the prompt settlement
and termination of the proceedings in derogation of the primordial
purpose of the law to strive to have the estate settled
expeditiously and promptly so that the benefits that may flow
therefrom may be immediately enjoyed by the decedent's heirs
and beneficiaries. Probate courts are therefore enjoined to desist
from such practice of appointing their clerks of court or other
court employees as administrators or receivers of estates or the
like.
NOTE:
* If the Defendant is still alive upon accrual of the action relating
to money claims arising from the contract, file the action against
the defendant under the STATUTE LIMITATIONS
*If the Defendant is already dead before the action can be filed,
file it in the form of a money claim from contract where the
STATUTE OF NON-CLAIMS shall govern.
Principle: The filing of a money claim against the decedents estate
in the probate court is mandatory.
This requirement is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the
deceased by informing the executor or administrator of the claims
against it, thus enabling him to examine each claim and to
determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed.
The plain and obvious design of the rule is the speedy settlement
of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the
property to the distributees, legatees, or heirs. `The law strictly
requires the prompt presentation and disposition of the claims
against the decedent's estate in order to settle the affairs of the
estate as soon as possible, pay off its debts and distribute the
residue.
Question: May the probate court entertain a belated claim of a
creditor? If so, under what circumstances?
Answer: Even if the time fixed to file claims against the estate has
expired, so long as there is no order of distribution yet issued by
the court, on the application of a late creditor, the court, for good
cause shown and on such claim to be filed within 1 month from
notice of the court to the creditor giving him permission to file
such late claim (Barredo vs CA GR No. L-17863 November 28,
1962).
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
vs
INDEPENDENT PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
G.R. No. L-28046 May 16, 1983

Principle: It is crystal clear that Article 1216 of the New Civil Code
is the applicable provision in this matter. Said provision gives the
creditor the right to 'proceed against anyone of the solidary
debtors or some or all of them simultaneously.' The choice is
undoubtedly left to the solidary, creditor to determine against
whom he will enforce collection. In case of the death of one of the
solidary debtors, he (the creditor) may, if he so chooses, proceed
against the surviving solidary debtors without necessity of filing a
claim in the estate of the deceased debtors. It is not mandatory for
him to have the case dismissed against the surviving debtors and
file its claim in the estate of the deceased solidary debtor . . .

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 4

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As correctly argued by petitioner, if Section 6, Rule 86 of the
Revised Rules of Court were applied literally, Article 1216 of the
New Civil Code would, in effect, be repealed since under the Rules
of Court, petitioner has no choice but to proceed against the
estate of Manuel Barredo only. Obviously, this provision
diminishes the Bank's right under the New Civil, Code to proceed
against any one, some or all of the solidary debtors. Such a
construction is not sanctioned by the principle, which is too well
settled to require citation, that a substantive law cannot be
amended by a procedural rule. Otherwise stared, Section 6, Rule
86 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot be made to prevail over
Article 1216 of the New Civil Code, the former being merely
procedural, while the latter, substantive.
ALAN JOSEPH A. SHEKER
vs
ESTATE OF ALICE O. SHEKER
G.R. No. 157912 December 13, 2007
ISABEL P. PORTUGAL and JOSE DOUGLAS PORTUGAL
vs
LEONILA PORTUGAL-BELTRAN
G.R. No. 155555. August 16, 2005
NOTE: This is an exception to the case of Yaptinchay vs Del Rosario
case
Principle: It appearing, however, that in the present case the only
property of the intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel
of land,to still subject it, under the circumstances of the case, to a
special proceeding which could be long, hence, not expeditious,
just to establish the status of petitioners as heirs is not only
impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and
expenses of an administration proceeding. And it is superfluous in
light of the fact that the parties to the civil case – subject of the
present case, could and had already in fact presented evidence
before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case
upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.

Principle: The certification of non-forum shopping is required only
for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. The RTC erred in
ruling that a contingent money claim against the estate of a
decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the present case, the whole
probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for
allowance of the decedent's will. Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86
of the Rules of Court, after granting letters of testamentary or of
administration, all persons having money claims against the
decedent are mandated to file or notify the court and the estate
administrator of their respective money claims; otherwise, they
would be barred, subject to certain exceptions.
Such being the case, a money claim against an estate is more akin
to a motion for creditors' claims to be recognized and taken into
consideration in the proper disposition of the properties of the
estate.
Based on the discussion on January 28, 2018
FACTS: This case involves a small parcel of land. There was an issue
as to whether or not the heirs should established first their status
as an heir.
ISSUE: Should the heirs establish first their status as an heir?
RULING: No.
According to the Supreme Court, that would be impractical.
Rodriguez
vs
Borja
GR No. L-21993 June 21, 1966
Principle: Upon the deposit of the will, the RTC motu proprio has
taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will.

Questions to Answer:
1.) Is the judgment of the court in probate proceeding appealable?
2.) What is the writ of Habeas Corpus?
3.) What are the instances when petition for issuance of Habeas
Corpus available?
4.) What is the period to file appeal in Habeas Corpus?
Pedro died andd his will was delivered to the RTC of Bulacan by
Maria, not accompanied by a petition for the same. Then, Josefa, a
relative of Pedro, filed a petition for settlement of estate of
deceased Pedro, before the RTC of Rizal. AT the same day, Maria
who delivered Pedro’s will in the RTC of Bulacan filed a petition
before the Bulacan RTC for the probate of Pedro’s will.

ISSUE: Which RTC acquired jurisdiction to the exclusion of the

RTC?

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 5

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RULING: Jurisdiction was vested in the Bulacan RTC upon delivery
of the will, even if no petition for allowance was filed until later,
because upon the deposit of the will, the RTC motu proprio has
taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will.
RAYMOND MICHAEL JACKSON
vs
HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO
G.R. No. 139255. November 24, 2003
Principle: Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening
events may bar his release or discharge from custody. What is to
be inquired into is the legality of his detention as of, at the earliest, to produce the body upon this writ may constitute contempt if not
the filing of the application for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if
the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of same
supervening events such as the instances mentioned in Section 4,
Rule 102, be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the
application. Any such supervening events are the issuance of a
judicial process preventing the discharge of the detained person.
FACTS: An information was filed against an American citizen,
Raymond Jackson for violation of Article 176 of the Revised Penal
Code. Summary deportation proceedings were initiated at the
Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) against the
petitioner. However, he could not be deported because he filed a
petition to lift the summary order of deportation with the CID
which had not yet been resolved.
The CID then issued an order for his arrest for being an undesirable
alien, based on the hold departure order in one of the criminal
cases. Jackson filed a petition for habeas corpus against the
Commissioner of the CID. The court directed its issuance as well as
a return of the writ by the respondents. In their return, the
respondents alleged inter alia that the detention was on the basis
of the summary deportation order issued and the hold departure
order of the Makati RTC.
ISSUE: Will the petition of Habeas Corpus prosper?
RULING: No.
Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening events may bar
his release or discharge from custody. In this case, the alien citizen
was already arrested by virtue of an order issued by CID.
NOTE:
*Before a writ of habeas corpus is issued, the court usually issues
an order addressed to a person detaining another – directing him
to show cause why the writ should not be granted – this is not the
writ itself. It is simply a citation to show cause. If, after receipt of
this citation, the respondent deported the alien in custody in
custody, it is not contempt.
*The writ of habeas corpus is usually issued after the citation, if
there is no cause why writ should not issue. This is the pre-
emptory writ of habeas corpus itself. It contains an unconditional
order for the respondent to produce the body of the detained
person in court at a time and place designated in the writ. Failure
satisfactorily explain (Lee Yick Hon vs Collector of Customs, 41 Phil.
548).
The general rule is that the Writ of Habeas Copus will not issue if
the detention is voluntary. The exception to this rule is, when the
person detained is a MINOR (Flores vs Cruz, 52 O.G. 5112).
ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL.,
vs
JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL.,
G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919
Principle: A prime specification of an application for a writ
of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The essential object and
purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner
of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to
relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint
which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. The forcible
taking of these women from Manila by officials of that city, who
handed them over to other parties, who deposited them in a
distant region, deprived these women of freedom of locomotion
just as effectively as if they had been imprisoned. Placed in Davao
without either money or personal belongings, they were
prevented from exercising the liberty of going when and where
they pleased. The restraint of liberty which began in Manila
continued until the aggrieved parties were returned to Manila and
released or until they freely and truly waived his right.
NOTE: The Writ of Habeas Corpus will lie on the following
instances:

(a) deprivation of any fundamental or constitutional rights;

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 6

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(b) lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose the sentence or on
the subject matter;
(c) excessive penalty or the penalty is not provided by law;
(d) excessive bond;
(e) to inquire the legality of an order of confinement by a
court martial.
Based on the discussion on January 29, 2018
Preliminary Questions:
1.) Distinguish Rule 103 from Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
2.) Is change of name a matter of right?
3.) What will happen to the petition for change of name if the
jurisdictional facts are not established?
4.) Does illegitimate children have the right to decide if they want
to use the surname of their father or not?
4.) Are Multiple Appeals allowed in Special Proceedings?
medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male and
female characteristics. Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with
secondary male characteristics. To further her petition,
Cagandahan presented in court the medical certificate evidencing
that she is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which
certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of
Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General
Hospital, who, in addition, explained that
“Cagandahan genetically is female but because her body secretes
male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally, thus
has organs of both male and female.” The lower court decided in
her favor but the Office of the Solicitor General appealed before
the Supreme Court invoking that the same was a violation of Rules
103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said petition did not
implead the local civil registrar.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cagandahan’s sex as appearing in her birth
certificate be changed.

RULING: Yes.
GRACE M. GRANDE
vs Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically
PATRICIO T. ANTONIO or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender
G.R. No. 206248 February 18, 2014 classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having
reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her
Principle: Art. 176 gives illegitimate children the right to decide if sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering
they want to use the surname of their father or not. It is not the that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen)
father (herein respondent) or the mother (herein petitioner) who there is preponderant biological support for considering him as
is granted by law the right to dictate the surname of their being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons
illegitimate children. makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at
maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.
Nothing is more settled than that when the law is clear and free
from ambiguity, it must be taken to mean what it says and it must
be given its literal meaning free from any ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO
interpretation. Respondent’s position that the court can order the vs
minors to use his surname, therefore, has no legal basis. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 174689 October 22, 2007

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Principle: Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first
vs. name was his sex reassignment. He intended to make his first
JENNIFER CAGANDAHAN name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself
GR No. 166676, September 12, 2008 into through surgery. However, a change of name does not alter
one’s legal capacity or civil status. RA 9048 does not sanction a
FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather
Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna a Petition for Correction of than avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for his
Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer B. declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil
Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender from female to registry and the public interest.
male. It appearing that Jennifer Cagandahan is
sufferingfrom Congenital AdrenalHyperplasia which is a rare

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 7

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FACTS: On November 26, 2002, Silverio field a petition for the
change of his first name “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely” and his sex
from male to female in his birth certificate in the RTC of Manila,
Branch 8, for reason of his sex reassignment. He alleged that he is
a male transsexual, he is anatomically male but thinks and acts like
a female.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of him, explaining that it is purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public
consonance with the principle of justice and equality.
The Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the
Court of Appeals alleging that there is no law allowing change of
name by reason of sex alteration. Petitioner filed a reconsideration
but was denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the change in name and sex in birth
certificate are allowed by reason of sex reassignment.
RULING: No.
Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his of entries in the civil registry only upon meritorious grounds.
sex reassignment. He intended to make his first name compatible
with the sex he thought he transformed himself into through
surgery. However, a change of name does not alter one’s legal
capacity or civil status. RA 9048 does not sanction a change of
first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than
avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for his
declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil
registry and the public interest.
Before a person can legally change his given name, he must
present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason
justifying such change. In addition, he must show that he will be
prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. In this case, he cause confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper and
failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer
as a result of using his true and official name.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs
ULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO
G.R. No. 189476 February 2, 2011
Principle: A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103
(CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and meritorious grounds including:
(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult
to write or pronounce;
(b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as
legitimation;
(c) when the change will avoid confusion;
(d) when one has continuously used and been known since
childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage;
(e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of
former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody;
and
(f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no
showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent
interest.
Respondent’s reason for changing his name cannot be considered
as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds, however.
The procedure recited in Rule 103] regarding change of name and
in Rule 108 concerning the cancellation or correction of entries in
the civil registry are separate and distinct. They may not be
substituted one for the other for the sole purpose of expediency.
To hold otherwise would render nugatory the provisions of the
Rules of Court allowing the change of one’s name or the correction
IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR
CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY OF
JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG
G.R. No. 159966. March 30, 2005
Principle: In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by
petitioner for the dropping his middle name is convenience.
However, how such change of name would make his integration
into Singaporean society easier and convenient is not clearly
established. That the continued use of his middle name would
reasonable cause to drop it from his registered complete name.
In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous
foundation on which his petition for change of name is based, it is
best that the matter of change of his name be left to his judgment
and discretion when he reaches the age of majority. As he is of
tender age, he may not yet understand and appreciate the value of
the change of his name and granting of the same at this point may
just prejudice him in his rights under our laws.
FACTS: A petition was filed by Anna Lisa Wang for the change of
name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry
of her son, a minor, Julian Lin Carulasan Wang before the RTC of
Cebu City.

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 8

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Julian was the son of Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang. They
were not yet married to each other when Julian was born.
Subsequently, when Julian’s parents got married, the latter
executed a deed of legitimation of their son so that the child’s
name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin
Carulasan Wang.
Reason: Since the family plans to stay in Singapore and, since in
Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are
not carried in a persons name, they anticipated that Julian will be
discriminated against because of his current registered name
which carries a middle name. Also, the spouses’ daughter and
Julian might get confused if they are really brothers and sisters
because they have different surnames. Lastly, Carulasan sounds
funny in Singapore’s Mandarin language since they do not have
the letter “R” but if there is, they pronounce it as “L”. It is for these
reasons why the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested
to be changed to Julian Lin Wang.
RTC: denied the petition. It found that the reasons
abovementioned does not fall within the grounds recognized by
law. It further ruled that the real reason behind is only
convenience.
MR: Denied. The Singaporean practice of not carrying a middle
name does not justify the dropping of the middle name of a
legitimate Filipino child who intends to study there. The dropping
of the middle name would be tantamount to giving due
recognition to or application of the laws of Singapore instead of
Philippine law which is controlling.
difficulty does not constitute proper and reasonable cause to
drop it from his registered complete name.
In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous
foundation on which his petition for change of name is based, it is
best that the matter of change of his name be left to his judgment
and discretion when he reaches the age of majority. As he is of
tender age, he may not yet understand and appreciate the value of
the change of his name and granting of the same at this point may
just prejudice him in his rights under our laws.
MARINDUQUE MINING
vs
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 161219 October 6, 2008
Principle: No record on appeal shall be required except in special
proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where
the law or the Rules of Court so require. The reason for multiple
appeals in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to
proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved
by the trial court and held to be final.
In such a case, the filing of a record on appeal becomes
indispensable since only a particular incident of the case is brought
to the appellate court for resolution with the rest of the
proceedings remaining within the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Hence, this Appeal. SC required the OGS to comment on the Based on the discussion on January 31, 2018
petition.
Preliminary Questions:
OSG: Trial Court is correct. legitimate children have the right to 1.) What is the Writ of Amparo?
bear the surnames of both their mother and father, and such right 2.) What is the Writ of Habeas Data?
cannot be denied by the mere expedient of dropping the same 3.) Distinguish Writ of Habeas Corpus, Writ of Amparo and Writ of
(Family Code). Mere convenience is not sufficient to support a Habeas Data.
petition for change of name and/or cancellation of entry. 4.) What is consent decree?
ISSUE: Whether the name mother’s surname should be dropped in 5.) What is continuing mandamus?
the instant case because it is a common practice in Singapore to 6.) What is Environmental Protection Order (EPO)?
omit said surname? 7.) What is Precautionary Principle?
8.) What is Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)?
RULING: No.

In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the
dropping his middle name is convenience. However, how such
change of name would make his integration into Singaporean
society easier and convenient is not clearly established. That the
continued use of his middle name would cause confusion and

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 9

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REVEREND FATHER ROBERT P. REYES RULING: No.
VS
COURT OF APPEALS Here, the restriction on petitioners right to travel as a
G. R. No. 182161 December 3, 2009 consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against him
was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that his
Principle: The rights that fall within the protective mantle of the right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it
Writ of Amparo under Section 1 of the Rules thereon are the amounted to a serious violation of his right to life, liberty and
following: (1) right to life; (2) right to liberty; and (3) right to security, for which there exists no readily available legal recourse
security. or remedy.

The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to
another. As we have stated in Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, a persons
right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the
very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. In such cases,
whether the accused should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction
for humanitarian reasons is a matter of the courts sound
discretion.
Here, the restriction on petitioners right to travel as a
consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against him
was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that his
right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it
amounted to a serious violation of his right to life, liberty and
security, for which there exists no readily available legal recourse
or remedy.
ARMANDO Q. CANLAS
vs
NAPICO HOMEOWNERS ASS’N.,
G.R. No. 182795 June 5, 2008
Principle: The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a
final judgment of the court, which in this case was affirmed with
finality by this Court in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701,
177038, is not included among the enumeration of rights as stated
in the above-quoted Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of
amparo is made available. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming
they still have any despite the final and executory judgment
adverse to them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and
security. There is, therefore, no legal basis for the issuance of
the writ of amparo.

VERY IMPORTANT: It is a MUST that you should be able to
distinguish Writ of Habeas Corpus, Writ of Amparo and Writ of
Habeas Data.
FACTS: Petitioner, Rev. Reyes was among those arrested in the
Manila Peninsula Hotel siege on November 2007 and together
with fifty (50) others, they were brought to Camp Crame to await
inquest proceedings. On December 2007, a Hold Departure Order
List was issued ordering the Immigration to include the name of
petitioner and 49 others for the alleged crime of Rebellion, in the
interest of national security and public safety.
Petitioner’s counsel wrote the DOJ Secretary requesting the lifting
of HDO, in view of the dismissal of his client’s criminal case on
rebellion. That, the DOJ Secretary has not acted on their request,
petitioner then next recourse was for the availment of the writ of
amparo because of his alleged continued restraint of right to
travel.
ISSUE: Is the right to travel covered by the Writ of Amparo?
FACTS: It appears that petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of
land situated in Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City. Their
dwellings/houses have either been demolished as of the time of
filing of the petition, or is about to be demolished pursuant to a
court judgment.
ISSUE: Is there legal basis for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo?
RULING: No.
The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final
judgment of the court, which in this case was affirmed with finality
by this Court in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038, is not
included among the enumeration of rights as stated in the above-
quoted Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is
made available. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming they still
have any despite the final and executory judgment adverse to
them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and security. There
is, therefore, no legal basis for the issuance of the writ of
amparo.

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 10

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EDGARDO NAVIA FACTS: It appears that on 27 February 2012, respondent
vs Magtanggol B. Gatdula filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Virginia Pardico Amparo in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. It was raffled to the
GR No. 184467 June 19 2012 sala of Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr. on the same day.

Principle: But lest it be overlooked, in an amparo petition, proof
of disappearance alone is not enough. It is likewise essential to
establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct
or indirect authorization, support or acquiescence of the
government. This indispensable element of State participation is
not present in this case. The petition does not contain any
allegation of State complicity, and none of the evidence presented
tend to show that the government or any of its agents
orchestrated Bens disappearance. In fact, none of its agents,
officials, or employees were impleaded or implicated
in Virginias amparo petition whether as responsible or accountable
persons. Thus, in the absence of an allegation or proof that the
government or its agents had a hand in Bens disappearance or that
they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in investigating his
case, the Court
will definitely not hold the government or its agents
either as responsible or accountable persons.
SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA
vs
MAGTANGGOL B. GATDULA
G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013
Principle: The insistence on filing of an Answer was inappropriate.
It is the Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions
for the issuance of Writs of Amparo. The requirement to file an
Answer is contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a
speedy remedy to those whose right to life, liberty and security
are violated or are threatened to be violated. In utter disregard of
the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Judge Pampilo insisted on issuing
summons and requiring an Answer.
A memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo.
A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a
party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. It is not
a civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced.
The Amparo was directed against petitioners Justice Secretary
Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and Deputy Director
Reynaldo O. Esmeralda of the National Bureau of Investigation (DE
LIMA, ET AL. for brevity). Gatdula wanted De Lima, et al. "to cease
and desist from framing up Petitioner [Gatdula] for the fake
ambush incident by filing bogus charges of Frustrated Murder
against Petitioner [Gatdula] in relation to the alleged ambush
incident."
Instead of deciding on whether to issue a Writ of Amparo, the
judge issued summons and ordered De Lima, et al. to file an
Answer. He also set the case for hearing on 1 March 2012. The
hearing was held allegedly for determining whether a temporary
protection order may be issued. During that hearing, counsel for
De Lima, et al. manifested that a Return, not an Answer, is
appropriate for Amparo cases.
Judge Pampilo insisted that "[s]ince no writ has been issued,
return is not the required pleading but answer". The judge noted
that the Rules of Court apply suppletorily in Amparo cases. He
opined that the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure applied and
thus required an Answer.
Judge Pampilo proceeded to conduct a hearing on the main case
on 7 March 2012. Even without a Return nor an Answer, he
ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda within five
(5) working days after that hearing. Since the period to file an
Answer had not yet lapsed by then, the judge also decided that the
memorandum of De Lima, et al. would be filed in lieu of their
Answer.
The RTC rendered a "Decision" granting the issuance of the Writ
of Amparo. The RTC also granted the interim reliefs prayed for,
namely: temporary protection, production and inspection orders.
The production and inspection orders were in relation to the
evidence and reports involving an on-going investigation of the
attempted assassination of Deputy Director Esmeralda. It is not
clear from the records how these pieces of evidence may be
related to the alleged threat to the life, liberty or security of the
respondent Gatdula.

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 11

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUES:
(1) Is the filing of the answer appropriate?
(2) Is the filing of memorandum appropriate?
(3) Is the application of the Revised Rules of Summary Proceeding
to Writ of Amparo correct?
RULING:
(1) No.
The insistence on filing of an Answer was inappropriate. It is the
Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the
issuance of Writs of Amparo. The requirement to file an Answer is
contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a speedy remedy
to those whose right to life, liberty and security are violated or are and downloaded said pictures. She showed the said pictures to
threatened to be violated. In utter disregard of the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo, Judge Pampilo insisted on issuing summons and
requiring an Answer.
(2) No.
A memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo.
(3) No.
A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a
party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. It is not a
civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced.
RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES
vs
ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE
G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014
Principle: To "engage" in something is different from undertaking a
business endeavour. To "engage" means "to do or take part in
something." It does not necessarily mean that the activity must be
done in pursuit of a business. What matters is that the person or
entity must be gathering, collecting or storing said data or
information about the aggrieved party or his or her family.
Whether such undertaking carries the element of regularity, as
when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a personal
endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is
immaterial and such will not prevent the writ from getting to said
person or entity.
Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts
is"Public," it can be surmised that the photographs in question
were viewable to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that
petitioners’ children positively limited the disclosure of the
photograph. If suchwere the case, they cannot invoke the
protection attached to the right to informational privacy.
FACTS: In January 2012, Angela Tan, a high school student at St.
Theresa’s College (STC), uploaded on Facebook several pictures of
her and her classmates (Nenita Daluz and Julienne Suzara) wearing
only their undergarments.
Thereafter, some of their classmates reported said photos to their
teacher, Mylene Escudero. Escudero, through her students, viewed
STC’s Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action.
Later, STC found Tan et al to have violated the student’s
handbook and banned them from “marching” in their graduation
ceremonies scheduled in March 2012.
The issue went to court but despite a TRO (temporary restraining
order) granted by the Cebu RTC enjoining the school from barring
the students in the graduation ceremonies, STC still barred said
students.
Subsequently, Rhonda Vivares, mother of Nenita, and the other
mothers filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas data
against the school. They argued, among others, that:
1. The privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was set
at “Friends Only.” They, thus, have a reasonable expectation of
privacy which must be respected.
2. The photos accessed belong to the girls and, thus, cannot be
used and reproduced without their consent. Escudero, however,
violated their rights by saving digital copies of the photos and by
subsequently showing them to STC’s officials. Thus, the Facebook
accounts of the children were intruded upon;
3. The intrusion into the Facebook accounts, as well as the copying
of information, data, and digital images happened at STC’s
Computer Laboratory;
They prayed that STC be ordered to surrender and deposit with
the court all soft and printed copies of the subject data and have
such data be declared illegally obtained in violation of the
children’s right to privacy.
The Cebu RTC eventually denied the petition. Hence, the instant
petition.

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 12

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for writ of habeas data is It must be underscored, however, that since her tenure of office
proper. has already ended, former President Arroyo can no longer invoke
the privilege of presidential immunity as a defense to evade
judicial determination of her responsibility or accountability for
RULING: Yes, it is proper but in this case, it will not prosper. the alleged violation or threatened violation of the right to life,
Contrary to the arguments of STC, the Supreme Court ruled that: liberty and security of Lozada.

1. The petition for writ of habeas data can be availed of even if this
is not a case of extralegal killing or enforced disappearance; and
2. The writ of habeas data can be availed of against STC even if it is
not an entity engaged in the business of “gathering, collecting, or
storing data or information regarding the person, family, home
and correspondence of the aggrieved party”.
First, the Rule on Habeas Data does not state that it can be applied
only in cases of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances.
Second, nothing in the Rule would suggest that the habeas data
protection shall be available only against abuses of a person or
entity engaged in the business of gathering, storing, and collecting
of data.
The Supreme Court ruled that if an online networking site (ONS)
like Facebook has privacy tools, and the user makes use of such
privacy tools, then he or she has a reasonable expectation of
privacy (right to informational privacy). Thus, such privacy must be
respected and protected.
In this case, however, there is no showing that the students
concerned made use of such privacy tools. Evidence would show
that that their post (status) on Facebook were published as
“Public”.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY
vs
ROSARIO GOPEZ LIM
G.R. No. 184769 October 5, 2010
Principle: The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to
protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the
grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or
doubtful. Employment constitutes a property right under the
context of the due process clause of the Constitution. It is evident
that respondent’s reservations on the real reasons for her transfer
- a legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of one’s
employment - are what prompted her to adopt the extraordinary
remedy of habeas data. Jurisdiction over such concerns is
inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters.
In another vein, there is no showing from the facts presented that
petitioners committed any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of
respondent’s right to privacy vis-a-vis the right to life, liberty or
security. To argue that petitioners’ refusal to disclose the contents
of reports allegedly received on the threats to respondent’s safety
amounts to a violation of her right to privacy is at best speculative.

RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR.,
vs
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO
G.R. Nos. 184379-80 April 24, 2012
Principle: It is settled in jurisprudence that the President enjoys
immunity from suit during his or her tenure of office or actual
incumbency. Conversely, this presidential privilege of immunity
cannot be invoked by a non-sitting president even for acts
committed during his or her tenure.
In the case at bar, the events that gave rise to the present action,
as well as the filing of the original Petition and the issuance of the
CA Decision, occurred during the incumbency of former President
Arroyo. In that respect, it was proper for the court a quo to have
dropped her as a respondent on account of her presidential
immunity from suit.
FACTS: A letter was sent to the Meralco admin department in
bulacan denouncing Lim, an administrative clerk. She was ordered
to be transferred to Alabang due to concerns over her safety. She
complained under the premise that the transfer was a denial of
her due process. She wrote a letter stating that:
“It appears that the veracity of these accusations and threats to be
[sic] highly suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if they
existed at all.” She added, “instead of the management supposedly
extending favor to me, the net result and effect
of management action would be a punitive one.”
She asked for deferment thereafter. Since the company didn’t
respond, she filed for a writ of habeas data in the Bulacan RTC due
to meralco’s omission of provding her with details about
the report of the letter. To her, this constituted a violation of her

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 13

 Remedial Law II
Special Proceedings Case Digests
As discussed by Judge Debalucos

--[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]--

Batch 2018
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
liberty and security. She asked for disclosure of the data and
measures for keeping the confidentiality of the data.

Meralco filed a reply saying that the jurisdiction was with the NLRC
and that the petition wasn’t in order. The trial court ruled in her
favor.

In the SC, Meralco petitioned that Habeas Data applies to entities

engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding an aggrieved party’s person, family or
home.

ISSUE: Is Habeas Data the right remedy for Lim?

RULING: No.

The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect
purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds
invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful.

==END==
“Study hard as if the bar exam is near.”
“Be in love with the law and the law will guide you.”
“Always aim high and fulfill your dreams!”

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!” Page 14