Trending Topics for Spec Pro

1. Writ of amparo vs. Habeas corpus vs. Habeas data

Q: Distinguish Writ of Amparo, Habeas Corpus, and Habeas Data

A:

Habeas Corpus Writ of Amaparo Habeas Data

Essence Involves the right to Involves the right Involves the right
liberty. It extends to life, liberty, and to privacy in life,
illegal confinement or security.It overs liberty, and
detention by which extrajudicial security
any person is killings, enforced
deprived of his liberty, disappearances,
or by which the and threats
rightful custody of any thereof
person is withheld
from the person
entitled thereto.

Availability Writ directed to a Remedy available Remedy available

person detaining to one whose right to any person
another, commanding to life, liberty, and whose right to
him to produce the security are privacy in life,
body of the prisoner violated or liberty, or security
at a designated time threatened with is violated or
and place, with the violation by an threatened by ana
day and cause of his unlawful act or unlawful act or
caption and detention, omission of a omission of a
to do, submit to, and public official or public official or
receive whatever the employee, or of a employee, or of a
court or judge private individual private individual
awarding the writ or entity; the writ or entity engaged
shall consider in that covers in the gathering,
behalf extrajudicial collecting or
killings and storing of data or
enforced information
disappearances or regarding the
threats thereof person, family,
home and
correspondence of
the aggrieved
party

Available Against (1) Deprivation of A violation or A violation or

liberty; and threatened threatened
(2) Withholding violation by an violation of the
the rightful unlawful act or right to privacy in
custody of any omission of: life, liberty, or
person (1) A public security by an
 official; unlawful actor
(2) A public omission of:
employee; (1) A public
and official;
(3) A private (2) A public
individual employee;
or entity (3) A private
individual
or entity
Engaged in the
gathering,
collecting, or
storing of data or
information
regarding the
person family,
home and
correspondence of
the aggrieved
party

2. Jurisdictional facts in probate proceedings

Q: Enumerate the Jurisdictional Facts in probate proceedings.

A: The Jurisdictional Facts in probate proceedings are:

(1) Testator’s death;

(2) Testator’s residence at the time of death; or
(3) The place where the testator left estate, if he is a non-resident;
(4) That the will has been delivered to the court and is in the possession thereof,
unless not yet delivered; and
(5) The value of the estate to determine the court with jurisdiction

3. Different modes of changing name

Q: What are the different modes of changing name? Differentiate.

A:

Rule 103 R.A. No. 9048 Rule 108

Scope Change of full name or Change of first Correction of
surname (substantial name or nick name substantial errors
corrections) and correction of or cancellation of
clerical errors of entries in the
entries in the Civil Civil Registry
Registry
Who may file A person desiring to Any person having Any person
change one’s name direct and personal interested in any
interest in the act, event, order
 correction of a or decree
clerical or concerning the
typographical civil status of
error/or change or persons which
first name or has been
nickname recorded in the
civil register

Grounds  Name is  Petitioner Upon good and

ridiculous, finds the valid grounds
tainted with first name or
dishonor and nickname to
extremely be
difficult to write ridiculous,
of pronounce; tainted with
 Consequences of dishonor or
change of status; extremely
 Necessity to difficult to
avoid confusion; write or
 Having pronounce
continuously  The new first
used and been name or
known since nickname
childhood by a has been
Filipino name, habitually
unaware of her and
alien parentage; continuously
 A sincere desire used by
to adopt a petitioner
Filipino Name to and he has
erase signs of been publicly
former alienage known by
all in good faith that first
and without name or
prejudicing nickname in
anybody the
community;
or
 The change
will avoid
confusion

4. venue of probate proceedings

Q: Where must a decedent’s will be probated?

A: If the decedents is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death,

whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved his estate settled, in the Court
in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant
of a foreign country, the Court of any province in which he had estate (Sec.1, Rule
73).

Q: Does Section 1, Rule 73 pertain to jurisdiction?

A: No. Section 1, Rule 73, specifically the clause "so far as it depends on the place of
residence of the decedent, or of the location of the estate," is in reality a matter of
venue, as the caption of the Rule indicates: "Settlement of Estate of Deceased
Persons. Venue and Processes”. It could not have been intended to define the
jurisdiction over the subject matter, because such legal provision is contained in a
law of procedure dealing merely with procedural matters. Procedure is one thing;
jurisdiction over the subject matter is another (Garcia Fule vs. CA).

5. statute of non claims

Q: Explain the concept of Statute of non-claims.

A: The statute of non-claims is the period fixed for the filing of claims against the
estate, such that, claims not filed during the said period is barred forever. The
guidelines as to the statue of non-claims are the following:

1. The period fixed by the probate court must not be less than six months nor
more than 12 months from the date of first publication of the notice.
2. Such period once fixed by the court is mandatory and it cannot be shortened.
3. The statute of non-claims supersedes the statute of limitations.

There are two exceptions to the statute of non-claims:

1. The creditor may apply with the court for a new period not exceeding one
month from the order allowing the same for just cause in accordance with
Rule 86, Section 2; and
2. The creditor may set up his claim as a counterclaim in an action filed by the
executor or administrator aainst him in accordance with Rule 86, Section 5.

Trending Cases for Spec Pro

1. Vda. De Alberto vs. CA, G.R. No. L-29759 (1989)

Where in a proceeding for settlement of estate, such proceeding has long been
terminated, a case which seeks to secure the recognition of a child as an
acknowledged natural child of the deceased in order to establish his rights to the
inheritance is already barred by prior judgment despite the insistence that claimant
had no knowledge or notice of the intestate proceedings of his alleged natural father.
The Court has invariably ruled that insolvency proceedings and settlement of a
decedent's estate are both proceedings in rem which are binding against the whole
world. All persons having interest in the subject matter involved, whether they were
notified or not, are equally bound. It was ruled further that a final order of
distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests the title to the land of the
estate in the distributees; and that the only instance where a party interested in a
probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by
reason of circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not
imputable to negligence.

2. San Luis vs. San Luis GR No. 133743 (2007)

Where in a Petition for issuance of Letters of Administration, the petitioner is not a

legal wife, but instead cohabited with the decedent while the latter was still alive,
such petitioner still has a legal personality to file the subject petition as co-owner of
the decedent’s properties depending on whether such petitioner would be able to
prove cohabitation and capacity to marry one another in which case, rule on special
co-ownership applies. If capacity to marry was not shown, rule on limited co-
ownership shall apply. In any case, the petitioner has the legal personality to file
petition for letters of administration. Section 6, 74 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.

An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be benefited by the
estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a
creditor. The interest must be material and direct, and not merely indirect or
contingent.

3. Caram vs. Segui GR No. 193652 (2014)

If the issue involved in a case is child custody and exercise of parental rights over
the child, the remedy of Amapro rule does not apply. The privilege of the writ of
amparo is a remedy available to victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced
disappearances or threats of a similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator
of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual.
It is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the right to life, liberty and
security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life.

4. Vivares vs. St Theresa's college GR No. 202666 (2014)

Without an actionable entitlement in the first place to the right to informational

privacy, a habeas datapetition will not prosper. The existence of a person’s right to
informational privacy and a showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or
threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim are
indispensable before the privilege of the writ may be extended. The writ will not
issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access to information about a
person. Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus between the right to
privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. The
writ of habeas datais a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.11 It is an independent and summary remedy
designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of
information of an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the
truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s right to control
information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is
being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.1

5. Republic vs. Olaybar GR No. 189538 (2014)

In a proceeding to cancel an entry of marriage in a marriage certificate for the
reason that no such marriage in fact existed as the signature of the supposed
wife was only forged, and thus in effect, nullifies the said marriage, Rule 108
of the Rules of Court is not the proper remedy. To be sure, a petition for
correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for
an action to invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent
circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage
under the Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws.
Nevertheless, while the Court maintains that Rule 108 cannot be availed of to
determine the validity of marriage, the Court cannot nullify the proceedings
before the trial court where all the parties had been given the opportunity to
contest the allegations of respondent; the procedures were followed, and all
the evidence of the parties had already been admitted and examined.
Respondent indeed sought, not the nullification of marriage as there was no
marriage to speak of, but the correction of the record of such marriage to
reflect the truth as set forth by the evidence. Otherwise stated, in allowing
the correction of the subject certificate of marriage by cancelling the wife
portion thereof, the trial court did not, in any way, declare the marriage void
as there was no marriage to speak of.