Magat vs.

Tantrade August 23, 2017

ROC Rule 92 Sec. 2

As provided under Section 1 of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, the period to
appeal may be extended upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the
docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the
reglementary period, meaning, it enables not just one (1) but two (2) extensions of 15
days each subject to the discretion of the Court of Appeals.

The heirs had the problem of financing the appeal of the case because of the financial
burden imposed by the hospitalization expenses and the death of Juliana.

In this case, the Court finds petitioners to have effectively pleaded grounds that warrant
the extensions prayed for. Furthermore, this Court finds it to be a serious error for the
Court of Appeals to decry petitioners' supposed "procrastination" when, in fact, the
petitioners acted well within the periods sanctioned by Rule 42.

Justice is better served by extending consideration to them and enabling an exhaustive

resolution of the parties' claims. Emphasizing that the petitioners showed utmost good
faith and each of the technical requirements of Rule 42 was satisfied.

Catalan vs. Basa G.R. No. 159567 July 31, 2007

A donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously a thing or right

in favor of another, who accepts it, the parties’ intention must be clear and the
attendance of a vice of consent, like any contract, renders the donation voidable.

Here, the petitioners contended that the donation is void because when Feliciano made
such donation to Mercedes, he was already suffering from schizophrenia. The Court
held that mere allegation is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that Feliciano
was competent when he donated the property in question to Mercedes.

Furthermore, a person suffering from schizophrenia does not necessarily lose his
competence to intelligently dispose of his property, hence, Feliciano was of sound mind
at that time and that this condition continued to exist until proof to the contrary was
adduced.

Naldoza vs. Republic G.R. No. L-55538 March 15, 1982

As provided under Article 364 of the Civil Code, minors who are presumably legitimate
must principally use their father’s surname, a change of name is allowed if there are
proper and reasonable causes of such change of name.

Here, Naldoza, the mother of the two minor children, filed a petition to change the
surname of the said children from his husband’s surname to that of her own surname on
the grounds that her husband is a swindler and that he abandoned them after she
confronted him with his previous marriage with another woman.

The trial court did not err in denying the petition for change of name, since the reasons
adduced for eliminating the father's surname are not substantial enough to justify the
petition, this would cause confusion as to the minors' parentage and might create the
impression that the minors are illegitimate since they would carry the maternal surname
only.

Bartolome vs. Republic G.R. No. 243288 August 28, 2019

The RTC and the CA identically found that the evidence adduced by petitioner was
insufficient to support his claim that he has been habitually and continuously using the
name "Ruben Cruz Bartolome " since childhood.

In the instant case, petitioner seeks to change his first name, to include his middle, and
to correct the spelling of his surname, i.e., from "Feliciano Bartholome" as stated in his
birth certificate to "Ruben Cruz Bartolome".

The Court held that petitioner did not adduce evidence to show that his father or his
siblings' surnames were actually spelled as "Bartolome.” It is a threshold doctrine that
the resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings are
generally binding on the Court, while the Court recognizes several exceptions, none of
these exceptions applies.