ALVARICO vs SOLA

Facts:

Petitioner Castorio Alvarico is the natural father of respondent Amelita Sola while Fermina Lopez
is petitioner’s aunt, and also Amelita’s adoptive mother. On June 17, 1982, the Bureau of Lands
approved and granted the Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) of Fermina (Amelita's adopted
mother / aunt) over Lot 5, with an area of 152 sq. m. and later on she executed a Deed of Self-
Adjudication and Transfer of Rights 3 over the property in favor of Amelita, who in return agreed
to assume all the obligations, duties, and conditions imposed upon Fermina under MSA
Application and paid a total amount of P 282,900.00.

The Bureau of Lands issued an Order approving the transfer of rights and granting the
amendment of the application from Fermina to Amelita and issued an Original Certificate of Title
in favor of Amelita which herein petitioner in return, filed a Civil Case for reconveyance against
Amelita claiming that on January 4, 1984, Fermina donated the land to him, and immediately
thereafter, he took possession thereof and that the donation to him had the effect of
withdrawing the earlier transfer to Amelita.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner has a better claim over the property.

Held:

No, the petitioner does not have a claim over the land subject of the dispute.

Even assuming that respondent Amelita Sola acquired title to the disputed property in bad faith,
only the State can institute reversion proceedings under Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act, to wit:
All actions for reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements
thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper
courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
Clearly then, Petitioner has no standing at all to question the validity of Respondent’s title and
he cannot recover the property because, to begin with, he has not shown that he is the rightful
owner thereof.

ELISEO MALTOS AND ROSITA P. MALTOS, Petitioners, vs HEIRS OF EUSEBIO BORROMEO,

Respondents.

Facts:
On February 13, 1979, Eusebio Borromeo was issued Free Patent No. 586681 over a piece of
agricultural land located in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur and on June 15, 1983, well within the
five-year prohibitory period, Eusebio Borromeo sold the land to Eliseo Maltos.

A Complaint for Nullity of Title and Reconveyance of Title against Eliseo Maltos, Rosita Maltos,
and the Register of Deeds of Agusan del Sur was filed by Norberta Borromeo and her children
upon Eusebio’s death on January 16, 1991 claiming that prior to his death, he allegedly told his
wife and his children to nullify the sale made to Eliseo Maltos and have the TCT be cancelled
because the sale was made within the five-year prohibitory period.

The Maltos spouses argued that the sale was made in good faith and that in purchasing the
property, they relied on Eusebio Borromeo's title and since the sale was made during the five-
year prohibitory period, the land would revert to the public domain and the proper party to
institute reversion proceedings was the Office of the Solicitor General.

Issue:

Whether or not the reconveyance must be made in favor of the petitoners.

Held:

Section 10187 of the Public Land Act is applicable in this case since title was already vested in
Eusebio Borromeo's name. There is sufficient cause to revert the property in favor of the state
since the sale was made within the five-year prohibitory period. However, the court cannot
declare reversion of the property in favor of the state in view of the limitation imposed by Section
101 that an action for reversion must first be filed by the Office of the Solicitor General.

NARCISE vs VALBUECO

Facts:

Respondent Valbueco filed an action for Annulment on the Free Patents, Certificates of Title
against petitioners Narcise, et.al., the Department of Natural Resources and the Register of
Deeds of Bataan. Valbueco claimed he is a possessor of the subject lots in an actual, peaceful,
and adverse possession since 1970. Respondent averred that from 1977 until 1999, Original
Certificates of Title, Free Patents and Transfer Certificates of Title covering the lots in question
were issued in the name of petitioners. RTC ruled that the instant case is an action for reversion
because petitioners are not qualified to be issued said free patents. As such, the land must revert
back to the State. Thus, it is the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) who is the real party-in-
interest, and not the respondent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the ruling in favor of Valbueco as he
alleged all the facts necessary to seek nullification of the subject free patents.

Issue:

Whether the instant case is actually a reversion case, and not a case for annulment of free patents
and certificates of title.

Ruling:

The action is one of annulment of patents and titles. The allegations in the complaint show that
respondent asserts its ownership over the subject properties by acquisitive prescription.

Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership of a real or immovable property by

possessor through the requisite lapse of time. In order to ripen into ownership, possession must
be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. The possession contemplated
as foundation for prescriptive right must be one under claim of title or adverse to or in
prescription. Acquisitive prescription may either be extraordinary, which requires uninterrupted
adverse possession for 30 years, or ordinary, which requires possession in good faith and with a
just title for a period of ten years. Being an action for annulment of patents and titles, it is the
respondent who is the real party-in-interest for it is the one claiming title or ownership adverse
to that of the registered owner.

REPUBLIC vs HEIRS OF CABRERA

Facts:

Meynardo filed an Application for Free Patent concerning an 8,0726 square-meter parcel of land
situated in Pining, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro and he alleged that he had been in possession of such
parcel of land since 1936, through his predecessor-in-interest Marcelo Cabrera. Jose and Leticia
De Castro (De Castros), claiming to be the actual possessors of Lot 1-A, filed before the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) a petition urging DENR to conduct an
investigation to determine Lot 1-A's land classification status. Consequently, in the DENR Final
Investigation Report (DENR Final Report) dated November 9, 1994 issued by Erwin D. Talento of
the DENR Land Management Office (LMO), Free Patent No. 516197, covering Lots 1, 1-A, and 2
(collectively, Roxas Properties), was declared null and void for having been issued over land
forming part of the public domain.

Issue:
Whether the land in question shall be subject to reversion proceedings.

Ruling:

Reversion proceeding is the manner through which the State seeks to revert land to the mass of
the public domain;50 it is proper when public land is fraudulently awarded and disposed of in
favor of private individuals or corporations,51 or when a person obtains a title under the Public
Land Act which includes, by oversight, lands which cannot be registered under the Torrens system
as they form part of the public domain.
Owing to the nature of reversion proceedings and the outcome which a favorable decision
therein entails, the State bears the burden to prove that the land previously decreed or
adjudicated in favor of the defendant constitutes land which cannot be owned by private
individuals. However in this case, the land in question was not classified as forest land therefore
ineligible for reversion proceedings.

PILAR Y. GOYENA, PETITIONER, vs AMPARO LEDESMA-GUSTILO, RESPONDENT.

Facts:

Amparo Ledesma- Gustilo filed a Petition for Letters of Guardianship over the person and
properties of her sister Julieta Ledesma who is under medical attention for old age, general
debility, and a "mini"-stroke. Pilar Y. Goyena, the close friend of Julieta, opposed the Petition on
the ground that Amparo is not fit to be appointed as the guardian of Julieta since their interests
are antagonistic, and Julieta is very able to take charge of her affairs, and this is clearly evident
from her letters to the Goyena.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellate court and the trial court erred in finding that Amparo is suitable for
appointment as guardian of the person and properties of Julieta.

Ruling:

No, the appellate court and the trial court is correct in holding that Amparo is suitable for
appointment as guardian of the person and properties of Julieta. Jurisprudence provides that “in
the selection of a guardian, a large discretion must be allowed the judge who deals directly with
the parties”; and, “as a rule, when it appears that the judge has exercised care and diligence in
selecting the guardian, and has given due consideration to the reasons for and against his action
which are urged by the interested parties, his action should not be disturbed unless it is made
very clear that he has fallen into grievous error.” In the case at bar, petitioner has not shown
that the lower courts committed any error. Petitioner can neither rely on certain letters of Julieta
to establish her claim that there existed a rift between the two which amounts to antagonistic
interests.

CANIZA vs CA

Facts:

Carmen Caiza, a spinster, a retired pharmacist, and former professor of the College of Chemistry
and Pharmacy of the University of the Philippines, was declared incompetent by judgment of the
RTC QC in a guardianship proceeding instituted by her niece, Amparo A. Evangelista. Plaintiff
Caiza was the absolute owner of the property in question, covered by TCT No. 27147; that out of
kindness, she had allowed the Estrada Spouses, their children, grandchildren and sons-in-law to
temporarily reside in her house, rent-free; that Caiza already had urgent need of the house on
account of her advanced age and failing health, "so funds could be raised to meet her expenses
for support, maintenance and medical treatment;" that through her guardian, Caiza had asked
the Estradas verbally and in writing to vacate the house but they had refused to do so; and that
"by the defendants' act of unlawfully depriving plaintiff of the possession of the house in
question, they ** (were) enriching themselves at the expense of the incompetent, because, while
they ** (were) saving money by not paying any rent for the house, the incompetent ** (was)
losing much money as her house could not be rented by others." Guardian Amparo Evangelista
commenced a suit in the (MetroTC) of Quezon City to eject the spouses Pedro and Leonora
Estrada from said premises.
Carmen Caiza died on March 19, 1994, and her heirs -- the aforementioned guardian, Amparo
Evangelista, and Ramon C. Nevado, her niece and nephew, respectively -- were by this Court's
leave, substituted for her.

Issue:

Whether or not Evangelista, as Caiza's legal guardian had authority to bring said action; and
assuming an affirmative answer to both questions, whether or not Evangelista may continue to
represent Caniza after the latter's death.

Ruling:
As already stated, Carmen Caiza passed away during the pendency of this appeal in which the
Estradas thereupon moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Caiza's death automatically
terminated the guardianship, Amaparo Evangelista lost all authority as her judicial guardian, and
ceased to have legal personality to represent her in the present appeal. The motion is without
merit as while it is indeed well-established rule that the relationship of guardian and ward is
necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian or the ward, the rule affords no
advantage to the Estradas as Amparo Evangelista, as niece of Carmen Caiza, is one of the latter's
only two (2) surviving heirs, the other being Caiza's nephew, Ramon C. Nevado.
NAPOLEON D. NERI, ALICIA D. NERI-MONDEJAR, VISMINDA D. NERI-CHAMBERS, ROSA D. NERI-
MILLAN, DOUGLAS D. NERI, EUTROPIA D. ILLUT-COCKINOS AND VICTORIA D. ILLUT-PIALAvs.
HEIRS OF HADJI YUSOP UY AND JULPHA* IBRAHIM UY. (Guardianship)

Facts:

On September 21, 1977, Anunciacion died intestate. Enrique, in his personal capacity and as
natural guardian of minors Rosa and Douglas, with Napoleon, Alicia, and Visminda executed an
Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale on July 7, 1979, adjudicating
the properties among themselves ten conveying them to the late spouses Uy for ₱ 80,000.00, the
children of Enrique filed a complaint for annulment of sale against spouses Uy (later substituted
by their heirs) before the RTC assailing the validity of the sale for having been sold within the
prohibited period. The heirs of Uy countered that the sale took place beyond the 5-year
prohibitory period from the issuance of the homestead patents. They also denied knowledge of
Eutropia and Victoria’s exclusion from the extrajudicial settlement and sale of the subject
properties, and interposed further the defenses of prescription and laches.

Issues:

Whether or not the Extra-Judicial Settlement is valid?

Ruling:

No. All the petitioners herein are indisputably legitimate children of Anunciacion from her first
and second marriages with Gonzalo and Enrique, respectively, and consequently, are entitled to
inherit from her in equal shares, pursuant to Articles 979 and 980 of the Civil Code, as such, upon
the death of Anunciacion on September 21, 1977, her children (1/16 of the estate each) and
Enrique (1/2 plus 1/16) acquired their respective inheritances.

Hence, in the execution of the Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale
in favor of spouses Uy, all the heirs of Anunciacion should have participated. Considering that
Eutropia and Victoria were admittedly excluded and that then minors Rosa and Douglas were not
properly represented therein, the settlement was not valid and binding up on them and
consequently, a total nullity.

OROPESA vs OROPESA

Facts:
Nilo Opresa filed a petition for him and certain Ms. Louie Ginez to be appointed as guardians over
the property of his father, Cirilo Opresa. In the said petition, it is alleged that the respondent has
been afflicted with several maladies and has been sickly for over 10 years already having suffered
a stroke on April 1, 2003 and June 1, 2003, that his judgment and memory were impaired and
such has been evident after his hospitalization; that due to his age and medical condition, he
cannot, without outside aid, manage his property wisely and has an easy prey for deceit and
exploitation by people around him, particularly, his girlfriend. Respondent filed an opposition to
the petition for guardianship.

Issue:

Whether respondent is considered an “incompetent” person as defined under section 2, rule 92

of the rules of court who should placed under guardianship

Held:

No, the report concludes that Gen. Oropesa possesses intact cognitive functioning, except for
mildly impaired abilities in memory, reasoning, and orientation. It is the observation of the court
that oppositor is still sharp, alert and able.

ABAD vs BIASON

Facts:

Petitioner Eduardo Abad filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of
Maura B. Abad with the RTC. Abad alleged that he is the nephew of Maura. He averred that
Maura, who is single, more than 90 years old is in dire need of a guardian who will look after her
and her business affairs. Respondent Biason opposed the appointment of Eduardo Abad as
Maura’s guardian as he cannot possibly perform the duties as such since he reside in Quezon city
while Maura maintains her abode in Mangaldan, Pangasinan. RTC rendered a decision appointing
Abad as Maura’s guardian. Unfortunately, pending the resolution for petition for review, Biason
died.

Issue:

Whether or not guardianship is terminated upon the death of Biason.

Held:

Yes. It is well-established rule that the relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily terminated
by the death of either the guardian or the ward.
LAND BANK vs PEREZ

Facts:

LBP is a government financial institution and the official depository of the Philippines.
Respondents were officers of Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ACDC), a
corporation engaged in the construction business. On several occasions, respondents executed
in favor of LBP trust receipts to secure the purchase of construction materials that they will need
in their construction projects. When the trust receipts matured, ACDC failed to return to LBP the
proceeds of the construction projects or the construction materials subject to trust receipts. After
several demands went unheeded, LBP filed a complaint for estafa against the respondent officers
of ACDC.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondents may be validly prosecuted for estafa in relation with Section 13
of the Trust Receipts Law.

Held:

NO. In this case, no dishonesty or abuse of confidence existed in the handling of the construction
materials. The misappropriation could be committed should the entrustee fail to turn over the
proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by the trust receipt transaction or fail to return the
goods themselves. The respondents could not have failed to return the proceeds since their
allegations that the clients of ACDC had not paid for the projects it had undertaken with them at
the time the case was filed had never been questioned or denied by LBP. What can only be
attributed to the respondents would be the failure to return the goods subject of the trust
receipts. ACDCs failure to return these materials or their end product at the time these trust
receipts expired could not be attributed to its volition. No bad faith, malice, negligence or breach
of contract has been attributed to ACDC, its officers or representatives. Therefore, absent any
abuse of confidence or misappropriation on the part of the respondents, the criminal
proceedings against them for estafa should not prosper.

CASTRO vs GREGORIO

Facts:

Atty. Castro and Rosario Castro (Petitioner) separated due to their incompatibilities and Jose’s
alleged homosexual tendencies. Their marriage bore two daughters: Rose Marie, who
succumbed to death after nine days from birth due to congenital heart disease, and Joanne
Benedicta Charissima Castro (Petitioner). On August 2000, a petition for adoption of Jose Maria
Jed Gregorio (Jed) and Ana Maria Regina Gregorio (Regina) was instituted by Atty. Jose Castro.
Atty. Castro alleged that Jed and Regina were his illegitimate children with Lilibeth Gregorio
(Rosario’s housekeeper).

Issues:

Whether consent of the spouse and legitimate children 10 years or over of the adopter is
required?

Ruling:

RA 8552 requires that the adoption by the father of a child born out of wedlock obtain not only
the consent of his wife but also the consent of his legitimate children. (Art. III, Sec. 7, RA 8552).
As a rule, the husband and wife must file a joint petition for adoption. In this instance, joint
adoption is not necessary but, the spouse seeking to adopt must first obtain the consent of his
or her spouse.

HERBERT CANG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses RONALD V. CLAVANO and
MARIA CLARA CLAVANO, respondents.

Facts:

Cang sought a divorce from Anna Marie before the Second Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada which issued the divorce decree that also granted sole custody of the three minor
children to Anna Marie. Ronald V. Clavano and Maria Clara Diago Clavano, the brother and sister-
in-law of Anna Marie, filed Special Proceedings for the adoption of the three minor Cang’s
children. Anna Marie likewise filed an affidavit of consent alleging that her husband had evaded
his legal obligation to support his children and that because she would be going to the United
States to attend to a family business, leaving the children would be a problem.

Issue:

Can minor children be legally adopted without the written consent of a natural parent on the
ground that the latter has abandoned them?

Ruling:

No, petitioner has not abandoned his children and the latter cannot be legally adopted without
his written consent. The family code and the rules of court provide that the written consent of
the natural parent is indispensable for the validity of the decree of adoption. Furthermore,
jurisprudence provides “the act of abandonment imports any conduct of the parent which
evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the
child.” In the instant case, records disclose that Herbert's conduct did not manifest a settled
purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims over his children as to,
constitute abandonment. Physical estrangement alone, without financial and moral desertion, is
not tantamount to abandonment. While admittedly, Herbert was physically absent as he was
then in the United States, he was not remiss in his natural and legal obligations of love, care and
support for his children.

TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB, as Special Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Alfredo
E. Jacob, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO PILAPIL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS for the Province of
Camarines Sur, and JUAN F. TRIVINO as publisher of "Balalong,"

Facts:

Tomasa is the surviving spouse of the deceased Alfredo e. Jacob and claims the right over the
latter's estate. However Pedro, the legally adopted son of the late Alfredo, claims for his share of
the estate as the sole surviving heir. The instant case is a petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The CA ruled in favor of Pedro Pilapil and against
Tomasa Vda. de Jacob on grounds including the declaration that the reconstructed marriage
certificate as spurious and non-existent.

Issue:

Whether Pedro Pilapil is a legally adopted son of the late Alfredo Jacob.

Ruling:

No, the court ruled that the burden of proof in establishing adoption is upon the person claiming
such relationship which Pedro Pilapil failed to do such and both the Bureau of Records
Management in Manila and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Tigaon, Camarines Sur, issued
Certifications that there was no record that Pedro Pilapil had been adopted by Dr. Jacob. Taken
together, these circumstances inexorably negate the alleged adoption of respondent.

REPUBLIC vs COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. G.R. NO. 103695. MARCH 15, 1996 (ADOPTION AND
CUSTODY OF MINORS)

Facts:

On September 2, 1988, Spouses Jaime B. Caranto and Zenaida P. Caranto filed a petition for
adoption of minor Midael C. Mazon, before the Regional Trial Court in Cavite City Branch XVI. In
their petition, Spouses Carato alleged that Midael C. Mazon had been living with them since he
was seven years old. They further alleged that when they got married on January 19, 1986, Midael
C. Mazon stayed with them under their care and custody. The OSG opposed the petition insofar
as the correction of name of Midael was concerned, according to the OSG, although the change
in the name sought was clerical, the petition was basically for adoption and not for correction of
entry under Rule 108.

Issue:

Whether or not change of name falls under Rule 108 (Correction of Entry)?

Ruling:

Yes. Contrary to the findings of the RTC, change of name falls under Rule 108. Section 2 clearly,
Rule 108 does not only concern civil status of persons but also concern changes of name. This
also means that the decision of the trial court, insofar as it granted the prayer for the correction
of entry, was void. This is so because the Local Civil Registrar, an indespensable party in
proceedings falling under Rule 108, was not notified. Furthermore, the decision of the RTC was
void also on the ground that the supposed Petition for Correction of Entry (change of name) was
not published. Meaning, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter.

REYES vs MAURICIO

Facts:

Respondents alleged that they are the legal heirs of the late Godofredo Mauricio, who was the
lawful and registered tenant of Eugenio to the subject land and Eugenio caused the preparation
of document to eject the respondents. Librada was illiterate and the contents of the said contract
were not read nor explained to her. Petitioner assailed the status of Leonida as a legal heir and
her capacity to substitute Librada who died during the pendency of the case.

Issue:

Whether Leonida’s filiation may be attacked collaterally

Held:

No. The Court ruled that legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in direct action
seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack.

IN THE MATTER OF STEPHANIE NATHY ASTORGA-GARCIA

Facts:
The petitioner's application to adopt his illegitimate child was granted by the trial court who also
ordered that the child's name be changed to reflect the petitioner's surname. Before the
adoption, the child had been using her natural mother's middle name and surname. The
petitioner wanted to change the child's name such that the child would keep her natural mother's
surname as her middle name and the petitioner's surname as her surname. The trial court denied
the petitioner's request as there was no law that allowed an adopted child to use the surname
of the child's biological mother as the child's middle name.

Issue:

Whether or not an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father, may use the surname
of her natural mother as her middle name.

Held:

The Court held that there is no law expressly prohibiting the child to use the surname of her
natural mother as her middle name and what is not prohibited by law, is allowed. Article 10 of
the New Civil Code provides that: In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it
is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.

IN RE: ADOTPTION OF MICHELLE & MICHAEL LIM

Facts:

Monina Lim, petitioner, was married with Primo Lim but were childless. The spouses registered
the children making it appears as if they were the parents. Unfortunately, in 1998, Primo
died. She then married an American Citizen, Angel Olario in December 2000. Petitioner decided
to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty given under RA 8552 to individuals who
simulated the birth of a child. In 2002, she filed separate petitions for adoption of Michelle and
Michael before the trial court.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner can singly adopt.

Held:

The answer is in the negative. The husband and wife should have jointly filed the petition for
adoption. The principle of dura lex sed lex is applicable as the law is explicit that the husband and
wife shall jointly adopt.
NERI vs SAMPANA

Facts:

Nery engage in the services of Sampana for the annulment of her marriage and for her adoption
by an alien adopter. The petition for annulment was granted. As for the adoption, Sampana asked
Nery if she could represent as the wife of her alien adopter. Nery inquired about the status of the
petition for adoption and discovered that there was no such petition filed in the court, Sampana
argued that Nery’s allegations were self-serving and unsubstantiated, hoowever, he admitted
receiving "one package fee" from Nery for both cases of annulment of marriage and adoption.
Sampana denied that he misled Nery as to the filing of the petition for adoption. Sampana
claimed that Nery could have mistaken the proceeding for the annulment case with the petition
for adoption, and that the annulment case could have overshadowed the adoption case.IBP
found Sampana guilty of malpractice for making Nery believed that he filed the petition for
adoption and for failing to file the petition despite receiving his legal fees.

Issue:

Whether or not Nery can be legally adopted.

Held:

NO. In the present case, Sampana admitted that despite receiving this fee, he unjustifiably failed
to file the petition for adoption and fell short of his duty of due diligence and candor to his client.
Sampana’s proffered excuse of waiting for the certification before filing the petition for adoption
is disingenuous and flimsy. In his position paper, he suggested to Nery that if the alien adopter
would be married to her close relative, the intended adoption could be possible. Under the
Domestic Adoption Act provision, which Sampana suggested, the alien adopter can jointly adopt
a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of his/her Filipino spouse, and the
certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt is waived.