Você está na página 1de 47

Pre-Week Bar Review Guide

Justice Magdangal M. de Leon


Distinction between civil action and special proceedings

a. Civil action action by which a party sues another for enforcement or protection of a
right, or prevention or redress of a wrong.
b. Special proceeding remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, right or a
particular fact.

2. Nature of special proceedings initially non-adversarial in nature; in

the course of

proceedings, there may be oppositors.

Rule 72
Sec. 1.

Subject matter of special proceedings.

1. Rules 73-75 )
2. Rules 76-81 )
3. Rules 82-86 )
4. Rules 87-90 )
5. A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC
6. Rules 92-97
7. A.M. No. 02-06-02-SC
8. Rule 98
9. Rule 101
10. Rule 102
11. Rule 103
12. Rule 104

13. Rule 105

14. Rule 106
15. Rule 107
16. Rule 108
17. Rule 109

Settlement of Estate of
Deceased Persons
Guardianship of Minors
Guardianship of Incompetents
Adoption and Custody of Minors
Hospitalization of Insane Persons
Habeas Corpus
Change of Name
Voluntary Dissolution of
(Deemed repealed by the
Corporation Code,
Title XIV, Secs. 117-122)
Judicial Approval of Voluntary
Recognition of Minor
Natural Children
Constitution of Family Home
(Deemed repealed by the
Family Code, Arts. 252-253)
Cancellation or Correction of
Appeals in Special Proceedings

Special Proceedings Under Various Laws

1. Summary proceedings under the Family Code
2. Actions mentioned in the Family Courts Act of 1997 (RA 8369)
- declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable
- legal separation

provisional orders on support, custody of minor children and administration of

common property
- violence against women and their children and protection orders
3. Proceedings under:
Child & Youth Welfare Code (PD 1083)
Child Abuse Act (RA 7610)
Child Employment Act (RA 7658)
- declaration of status as abandoned, dependent or neglected children
- voluntary or involuntary commitment of children
- suspension, termination or restoration of parental authority

Domestic and Inter-country adoption

Petition for corporate rehabilitation
Petition for writ of amparo
Petition for writ of habeas data

Rules in civil actions applicable to special proceedings

Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions.
In the absence of special rules, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be,
as far as practicable, applicable to special proceedings.
1. Rule 17 governing dismissal of actions by plaintiff in civil actions
(Ventura vs. Ventura, Sept. 24, 1969)
2. Rules regarding:
- preparation, filing and service of applications, motions, and other papers
- omnibus motions
- subpoena
- computation of time
- motion for new trial
- discovery
- trial before commissioners
- procedure of appeal (Fernandez vs. Maravilla, 10 SCRA 589 [1964])
3. Rule 33 regarding judgment on demurrer to evidence
(Matute vs. CA, 26 SCRA 768 [1969])

Recent jurisprudence

In the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in special
proceedings as much as possible and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said
proceedings. Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules in ordinary
actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to special proceedings. Provisions of the Rules of
Court requiring a certification of non-forum shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a
written explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the payment of filing fees for money
claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are
applicable to special proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person.
(Sheker versus Estate of Alice Sheker, G.R. No. 157912 Dec 13, 2007)


Art. 777, Civil Code rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of death of
the decedent.

This is only from the substantive aspect. From the PROCEDURAL aspect, there are
certain procedures that must be observed before actual transmission of the property, but rights
of the heirs retroact from the moment of death.

Recent jurisprudence

The right of respondents predecessors over the subject property is more than sufficient to
uphold respondents right to possession over the same. Respondents right to the property was
vested in her along with her siblings from the moment of their fathers death. As heir, respondent
had the right to the possession of the property, which is one of the attributes of ownership.
Such rights are enforced and protected from encroachments made or attempted before the
judicial declaration since respondent acquired hereditary rights even before judicial declaration
in testate or intestate proceedings.(Bunyi versus Factor. G.R. No. 172547, June 30, 2009)

Settlement of estate

The determination of which court exercises jurisdiction over matters of probate depends
upon the GROSS VALUE of the estate of the decedent. Rule 73, Sec. 1 is deemed amended by
BP 129, as amended by RA 7691 (Lim vs. CA, G.R. No. 124715, January 24, 2000, 323 SCRA

Kinds of settlement based on the FORM of settlement:

1. Extrajudicial settlement (Rule 74, Sec. 1)

2. Summary settlement of estates of small value (Rule 74, Sec. 2)
3. Judicial settlement through letters testamentary or letters of administration with or without
the will annexed (Rules 73, 75-90)
Rule 73
Sec. 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled.
1. If residing in Philippines at time of death, whether citizen or not, court of PLACE OF
2. If residing in a foreign country court of ANY PLACE WHERE HE HAD ESTATE.
3. Court first taking cognizance of settlement of estate of a decedent shall exercise
jurisdiction TO THE EXCLUSION of all other courts.
- subject to preferential jurisdiction of court where TESTATE proceedings are filed.
4. Jurisdiction assumed by a court depending on
- place of residence of decedent, or
- location of estate
shall NOT BE CONTESTED in a suit or proceeding,
except in an appeal from that court, or
when want of jurisdiction appears in the record


1. Term resides refers to actual or physical residence, as distinguished from legal

residence or domicile.
There is a distinction between residence for purposes of election laws and
residence for purposes of fixing the venue of actions. In election cases, residence
and domicile are treated as synonymous terms, that is, the fixed permanent residence
to which when absent, one has the intention of returning. However, for purposes of
fixing venue under the Rules of Court, the residence of a person is his personal, actual
or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily

be his legal residence or domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and
consistency. Hence, it is possible that a person may have his residence in one place
and domicile in another. (San Luis vs. San Luis, G.R. No. 133743, February 6, 2007)
2. Sec. 1, Rule 73 prescribing court where decedents estate shall be settled (a) place of
residence or (b) where his estate is located, relates to VENUE and not jurisdiction.
3. Where two proceedings filed, one intestate, the other testate illustrative cases on
which courts should have jurisdiction:
ROBERTS VS. LEONIDAS (129 SCRA 33 [YEAR]) intestate in CFI Manila Branch
20, testate (reprobate) in CFI Manila, Branch 38. Ruling: priority to second branch of
same court (CFI Manila). a. Probate of will MANDATORY- anomalous that estate of
person who died testate should be settled in intestate proceedings. b. Intestate case
should be CONSOLIDATED with testate proceeding - Judge assigned to testate
proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.
URIARTE VS. CFI OF NEGROS OCC. (33 SCRA 252 [YEAR]) intestate in Negros
court, testate in Manila court. Ruling: priority to first court. Petitioner in Manila court
should have submitted will for probate to Negros court, either in separate special
proceeding or motion. Testate proceeding takes precedence over intestate
proceeding. If in the course of intestate proceeding, it is found that decedent left a
will, proceeding for probate of will should REPLACE intestate proceeding.
CUENCO VS. CA (53 SCRA 360 [1973]) intestate in Cebu court, testate in QC
court. Ruling: priority to second court. First court, upon learning that petition for
probate has been presented in another court, may DECLINE TO TAKE
COGNIZANCE of and HOLD IN ABEYANCE petition before it, and instead DEFER to
second court. If the will is admitted to probate, it will definitely DECLINE to take
Explain difference between Uriarte and Cuenco rulings In Uriarte, there was showing
that petitioner in probate proceeding knew before filing of petition in Manila that there was
already intestate proceeding in Negros.
Sec. 2. Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage
A creditor cannot sue surviving spouse of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding for
collection of sum of money chargeable against the conjugal property. Proper remedy file a
claim in the settlement of estate of the decedent. Reason: upon death of one spouse, powers of
administration of surviving spouse ceases and is passed to administrator appointed by probate
court in the settlement proceedings. (Alipio vs. CA, 341 SCRA 441 [2000])

Probate court is of limited jurisdiction

1. Probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of

the estate and equally claimed as belonging to outside parties.
2. It can only determine whether or not they should be included in the inventory or list of
properties to be administered by the administrator.
3. Probate court can only pass upon questions of title provisionally for the purpose of
determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory.
4. Parties have to resort to an ordinary action for final determination of conflicting claims of
CASES: Vda. de Rodriguez vs. CA, 91 SCRA 540; Pastor vs. CA, 122 SCRA 885;
Pereira vs. CA, 174 SCRA 154 .

Separate civil action for quieting of title - where issue or ownership of properties
excluded from the inventory is finally determined (Pobre vs. Gonong, 148 SCRA 553
Where interested parties are all heirs and rights of third parties are not impaired, probate
court can decide question of ownership (Coca vs. Pangilinan, 81 SCRA 278 [1987]).
With consent of all the parties, without prejudice to third persons (Trinidad vs. CA, 202
SCRA 106 [1991]).

However, probate court has jurisdiction to (a) determine heirs separate action for
declaration of heirs not proper (Solivio vs. CA, 182 SCRA 119 [1990]) and (b) distribute

Distinction between extrajudicial settlement (ES) and summary settlement of estates of

small value (SS):
1. ES-no court intervention
SS-judicial adjudication although summary
2. ES-value of estate immaterial
SS-applies only where gross value not more than P10,000.00
3. ES-allowed only in intestate succession
SS-both testate and intestate
4. ES-no outstanding debts of estate at time of settlement
SS-even if there are debts
Sec. 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between the heirs


1. Decedent dies intestate
2. No outstanding debts at time of settlement*
3. Heirs all of legal age or minors represented by judicial guardians or legal
4. Settlement made in public instrument duly filed with RD
5. Publication in newspaper of general circulation in the province once a week for 3
consecutive weeks
6. Bond equivalent to value of personal property posted with RD**

* Presumed that decedent left no debts if no creditor filed petition for letters of administration
within 2 years after death of decedent.
** Bond required only when personal property is involved in the extrajudicial settlement. Real
estate is subject to lien in favor of creditors, heirs or other persons for 2 years from distribution
of estate, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made (Sec. 4, Rule

RATIONALE for Sec. 1, Rule 74 when person dies without having obligations to be
paid, his heirs are not bound to submit property for judicial administration, which is
always long and costly (Utulo vs. Pasion, 66 Phil. 302).

IF HEIRS DISAGREE ordinary action for partition.

IF ONLY ONE HEIR affidavit of self-adjudication.

Adjudication by an heir of the decedents entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit

is allowed only if he is the sole heir to the estate (Delgado vda. de De la Rosa vs. Heirs of
Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian, 480 SCRA 334 [2006]).

Summary settlement affidavit of self-adjudication

Respondent, believing rightly or wrongly that she was the sole heir to Portugals estate,
executed on February 15, 1988 the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication under the second
sentence of Rule 74, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an exception to the
general rule that when a person dies leaving a property, it should be judicially administered and
the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order established in Sec. 6,
Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or in case he did, he failed to name an executor
therein. (Portugal vs. Portugal-Beltran, G.R.No. 155555, August 16, 2005)
Since Josefa Delgado had heirs other than Guillermo Rustia, Guillermo could not have
validly adjudicated Josefas estate all to himself. Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is
clear. Adjudication by an heir of the decedents entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit
is allowed only if he is the sole heir to the estate. (In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of
Delgado, G.R. No. 155733, January 27, 2006)


whether by public instrument, affidavit, stipulation in pending action for partition.

DESPITE ITS PUBLICATION, extrajudicial settlement NOT BINDING on any person who
has not participated therein or who had no notice thereof (Sec. 1, last par., Rule 74;
Sampilo vs. CA, 101 Phil. 71 [1958]).

Extrajudicial settlement on whom binding

The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding. The rule
plainly states, however, that persons who do not participate or had no notice of an
extrajudicial settlement will not be bound thereby. The publication of the settlement
does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not
take part in it because the same was notice after the fact of execution. (Cua vs.
Vargas, G.R. No. 156536, October 31, 2006)
The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the
heirs who had no knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was
notice after the fact of execution. The requirement of publication is geared for the
protection of creditors and was never intended to deprive heirs of their lawful
participation in the decedents estate. (Spouses Tiro vs. Heirs of Cuyos, G.R. No.
161220, July 30, 2008)

Action to annul deed of extrajudicial settlement Sec. 4, Rule 74 provides a two year
prescriptive period (1) to persons who participated or taken part or had notice of the
extrajudicial partition, and (2) when the provisions of Sec. 1 of Rule 74 have been strictly
complied with that all persons or heirs of the decedent have taken part in the
extrajudicial settlement or are represented by themselves or through guardians
(Pedrosa vs. CA, 353 SCRA 620 [2001]).

Prescriptive period for non-participants 10 years, because an action for

reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust, being an obligation created by law,
prescribes in 10 years (Art. 1144, par. 2, Civil Code)

The period starts from issuance of title over the property (Marquez vs. CA, 300 SCRA 653
[1998]). Constructive trusts under Art. 1456 are established to prevent unjust enrichment. In
Marquez, husband executed affidavit of self-adjudication without including the children
The ruling in Gerona vs. De Guzman, 11 SCRA 153 (1964), cited in Pedrosa vs. CA,, that
prescriptive period for non-participants is 4 years from discovery of fraud, i.e., when deed was
filed with RD and new title issued, is not applicable, because the same was based on the old
Code of Civil Procedure (Sec. 43, which governed prescription). The Gerona doctrine was
abandoned in Amerol vs. Bagumbaran, 154 SCRA 396 (1987) and reiterated in Caro vs. CA,
180 SCRA 401 (1989) and Marquez.

Exception to prescription of actions when plaintiff, the legal owner, and not the
defendant registered owner, is in possession of the land to be reconveyed. Said action,
when based on fraud, is imprescriptible as long as the land has not passed to an
innocent purchaser for value (Heirs of Saludares vs. CA, 420 SCRA 54).

Lack of registration of extrajudicial settlement does not affect its validity when there are
no creditors or rights of creditors are not involved (Vda. de Reyes vs. CA, 199 SCRA 646

1. Allowance of will is conclusive as to its due execution.

Art. 783, Civil Code defines a will as: an act whereby a person is permitted with the
formalities prescribed by law to control to a certain degree the disposition of his
estate to take effect after his death.

Petitioner should realize that the allowance of her husbands will is conclusive only
as to its due execution. The authority of the probate court is limited to ascertaining
whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by law. Thus, petitioners claim of title to the properties forming part
of her husbands estate should be settled in an ordinary action before the regular courts.
(Nittscher vs. Nittscher, G.R. No. 160530, November 20, 2007)
2. Probate of will (special proceeding to establish the validity of a will) is MANDATORY.
a. The law enjoins probate of the will and public policy requires it.
Unless will is
probated and notice given to the whole world, right of a person to dispose of his
property by will may be rendered nugatory (Maninang vs. CA, 114 SCRA 478
The Deed of Donation which is one of mortis causa, not having followed the formalities
of a will, is void and transmitted no right to petitioners mother. But even assuming that the
formalities were observed, since it was not probated, no right to Lot Nos. 674 and 676 was
transmitted to Maria. (Aluad vs. Aluad, G.R. No. 176943, October 17, 2008
b. In intestate succession, no valid partition among heirs until after will has been
probated (Ralla vs. Judge Untalan, 172 SCRA 858 [1989]).
c. Presentation of will cannot be dispensed with on the ground of ESTOPPEL because
public policy requires that a will should be probated (Fernandez vs. Dimaguiba, 21
SCRA 428 [1967]).


GENERAL RULE: Probate courts authority is limited only to extrinsic validity of the will,
a. due execution voluntariness
b. testators testamentary capacity sound mind
c. compliance with formal requisites or solemnities
1. Intrinsic validity of the will normally comes after court declares that will has been duly

2. Court at this stage of the proceedings is not called upon to rule on intrinsic validity or
legality of the provisions of the will (Nuguid vs. Nuguid, 17 SCRA 449 [1966]; Maninang
vs. CA, supra).
1. In exceptional instances, courts not powerless to pass upon certain provisions of will
which it may declare invalid even as it upholds extrinsic validity of will (Ajero vs. Ca, 236
SCRA 488 [1994]).
2. Probate court may only disregard passing on extrinsic validity of will where intrinsic
validity apparent on face of will (Maninang vs. CA, supra)
3. Probate of will might become idle ceremony if on its face it appears intrinsically void.
4. In Nuguid, court ruled that will was intrinsically invalid as it completely preterited parents
of the testator.
a. Preterition annuls institution of heirs
b. Disinheritance annuls institution of heirs as to portion of estate which disinherited
heirs have been illegally deprived
Sec. 1.

Who may petition for allowance of will.


Legatee need not be a relative of decedent
Devisee need not be a relative of decedent
Other interested person - heir; creditor
Testator during his lifetime

WHEN at any time after death of testator not subject to bar by statute of
limitations and does not prescribe, since it is required by public policy.

WHERE court having jurisdiction

WHAT petition to have will allowed whether:

a. will in possession of petitioner or not
b. will lost
c. will destroyed



Attaching of mere copy of will sufficient annexing of original of will to the petition is not
jurisdictional requirement.


Delivery of will sufficient even if no petition filed under Sec. 3, Rule 76, when a will is
delivered to the court, court could motu proprio take steps to fix time and place for proving
the will, issue corresponding notices.
Sec. 2. Contents of petition.


form of an application and filed with the original of the will attached thereto.
Jurisdictional facts referred to in Sec. 2(a):
1. Death of decedent
2. His residence at time of his death in the place within the jurisdiction of the court, or if
he is a non-resident, his leaving an estate in such place.
Sec. 3. Court to appoint time for proving the will. Notice thereof to be published.
Notice and Hearing; Publication
1. After will delivered to, or petition for allowance of will filed in court having jurisdiction,
a. shall fix time and place for proving will when all concerned may appear to contest
allowance thereof.
b. cause notice of such time and place to be PUBLISHED 3 weeks successively in
newspaper of general circulation in the province.
2. NO NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION where petition for probate filed by TESTATOR

Only known heirs, legatees and devisees entitled to personal notice

Notice is required to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the
testator. [Sec. 3, Rule 76, Rules of Court]. 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. (Alaban vs.
CA, G.R. No. 156021, September 23, 2005).
Probate of Will is In Rem

Notice by publication as prerequisite to allowance of will is CONSTRUCTIVE

NOTICE to the whole world.

When probate is granted, the judgment is binding upon everybody, even against the

Without publication of petition, proceedings for settlement of estate is VOID and should
Sec. 4. Heirs, devisees, legatees and executor to be notified by mail or personally.
1. Notice of time and place of hearing should be addressed to
a. designated or known heirs, legatees and devisees
b. person named as executor (if he is not petitioner)

c. person named as co-executor not petitioning

2. residing in the Philippines
3. at their places of residence, if known
4. Personal service at least 10 days before hearing
5. Mailed service at least 20 days before hearing
6. IF TESTATOR asks for allowance of his own will notice shall be sent only to his

Notice to Designated Heirs, Legatees and Devisees Jurisdictional when they are
known AND their places of residence are known (De Arranz vs. Galing, 161 SCRA 628).
SEC. 5. Proof of hearing. What sufficient in absence of contest.


1. Publication
2. Notice of hearing served on known heirs, legatees, devisees, etc. if places of residence
3. Testimony of subscribing witnesses
a. Uncontested -- one witness sufficient
b. Contested
-- all subscribing witnesses and
notary (wills executed under Civil Code)
other witnesses (under certain conditions)
4. Holographic will
a. Uncontested at least one witness who knows handwriting and signature of testator;
expert testimony (in the absence of competent witness)
b. Contested at least 3 witnesses who know handwriting of testator; expert testimony
(in the absence of competent witness)
5. Holographic will testator himself as petitioner
a. Contested contestant has burden of disproving genuineness and due execution
b. Uncontested testator must affirm that will and signature are in his own handwriting

Substantial Compliance Rule

If will executed in substantial compliance with formalities of law, and possibility of bad
faith obviated it should be admitted to probate (De Jesus vs. De Jesus, 134 SCRA 245).
Sec. 9. Grounds for disallowing will.
1. Legal formalities
a. not executed and attested as required by law
2. Testamentary capacity
b. testator insane or otherwise mentally incapable to make will at time of execution
3. Due execution
c. executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats
d. procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the
beneficiary, or some other person, for his benefit.
e. signature of testator procured by fraud or trick and he did not intend that the
instrument be his will at time of fixing his signature
f. testator acted by mistake or did not intend that instrument be signed or should be his
will at the time of affixing his signature (Art. 389, Civil Code)

Grounds for Disallowance of Will Exclusive

Lists in Sec. 9, Rule 76 and Art. 389 are EXCLUSIVE NO OTHER GROUND can serve to
disallow a will.
Example: If testator fails to sign and date some dispositions in holographic will, it affects only
the validity of the dispositions, but not the whole will. Exc. If unauthenticated alterations,
cancellations or insertions are made on the DATE of will of on testators SIGNATURE (Ajero vs.
CA, supra).

Separate wills may be probated jointly (Vda. de Perez vs. Tolete, 232 SCRA 722
Sec. 1. Will proved outside of the Philippines may be allowed here.



due execution of will in accordance with foreign laws

testator has domicile in foreign country and not Philippines
will has been admitted to probate in such country
fact that foreign court is a probate court
law of the foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills
(Vda. de Perez vs. Tolete, supra)

Reprobate of will
While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them; however, petitioner, as ancillary administrator of
Audreys estate, was duty-bound to introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of
Maryland. (Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon, G.R. No. 139868, June 8, 2006)


Compliance with Secs. 3 and 4 of Rule 76, re publication and notice by mail or personally
to known heirs, legatees and devisees of testator resident in the Philippines and to executor, if
he is not the petitioner, required also in wills for reprobate (Vda. de Perez vs. Tolete).
Sec. 1. Who are incompetent to serve as executors or administrators

EXECUTOR person named in the will to administer decedents estate to carry out
provisions thereof
ADMINISTRATOR person appointed by the court to administer the estate
Administrator need not be an heir can be a stranger to the deceased, such as a


1. Minority
2. Non-residence
3. Unfitness
a. drunkenness
b. incompetence
c. want of understanding

d. want of integrity
e. conviction of offense involving moral turpitude (anything done contrary to justice,
honesty, good morals)

Courts may refuse to appoint a person as executor or administrator on ground of

UNSUITABLENESS adverse interest or hostile to those immediately interested
in the estate (Lim vs. Diaz-Maillares, 18 SCRA 371 [1966]).

Failure to file an income tax return is not a crime involving moral turpitude because the
mere omission is already a violation regardless of the fraudulent intent or willfulness of the
individual. (Republic vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 130371, August 4, 2009)
Sec. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted

When administration granted

1. No executor named in will

2. Executor/s (is/are):
a. Incompetent
- Minor
- Non-resident
- Unfit
b. Refuse the trust
c. Fail to give bond
3. Person dies intestate
4. Will void and not allowed


letters of administration
with will annexed


letters of administration

Order of preference in appointment of administrator


surviving spouse partner in conjugal partnership and heir of deceased


next of kin

Meaning of next of kin

On the matter of appointment osf administrator of the estate of the deceased, the
surviving spouse is preferred over the next of kin of the decedent. When the law speaks of
next of kin, the reference is to those who are entitled, under the statute of distribution, to the
decedents property; one whose relationship is such that he is entitled to share in the estate as
distributed, or, in short, an heir. In resolving, therefore, the issue of whether an applicant for
letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir of the decedent, the probate court perforce
has to determine and pass upon the issue of filiation. A separate action will only result in a
multiplicity of suits. (Angeles vs. Maglaya, G.R. No. 153798, September 2, 2005)

person requested by spouse or next of kin


principal creditors
a. if spouse or next of kin is incompetent or unwilling
b. neglects for 30 days after death of decedent to apply for administration, or to
request that administration be granted to some other person


other person selected by court if no creditor competent or willing

The order of preference in the appointment of a regular administrator as provided in the

afore-quoted provision does not apply to the selection of a special administrator. The preference
under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the next of kin refers to the appointment of a
regular administrator, and not of a special administrator, as the appointment of the latter lies

entirely in the discretion of the court, and is not appealable. Not being appealable, the only
remedy against the appointment of a special administrator is Certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. (Tan vs. Gedorio, Jr., G.R. No. 166520, March 14, 2008)

Court may reject order of preference

While surviving spouse is entitled to preference in the appointment, circumstances might

warrant his rejection and appointment of someone else, at the discretion of the court.

Interest in estate as principal consideration

In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in the

estate of the one to be appointed.
Those who will reap benefit of a wise, speedy and economical administration or will
suffer consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement have the HIGHEST
INTEREST and MOST INFLUENTIAL MOTIVE to administer estate correctly (Gonzales vs.
Aguinaldo, 190 SCRA 112 [1990]).
The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co-administrators,
especially in cases where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be
represented in the management of the estate.

LETTERS TESTAMENTARY issued to executor


when there is no executor named in will, or executor is incompetent, refuses trust or fails
to give bond.

LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION issued to administrator in intestate proceedings.

Sec. 1. Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary. Simultaneous petition for

Any person interested in a will may oppose in writing the issuance of letters
testamentary to persons named as executors, and at the same time file petition for letters of
administration with will annexed.
Meaning of interested person one who would be benefited by the estate (heir), or
one who has a claim against the estate (creditor). Interest must be MATERIAL and DIRECT, not
merely indirect or contingent (Sagunsin vs. Lindayag, 6 SCRA 874 [YEAR]).
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 (San Luis vs. San Luis, G.R.
No. 133743, February 6, 2007)
Where the right of the person filing a petition for the issuance of letters of administration
is dependent on a fact which has not been established or worse, can no longer be established,
such contingent interest does not make her an interested party. (Tayag ve. Tayag-Gallor, G.R.
No. 174680, March 24, 2008)

Publication and notice of hearing (per Sec. 3, Rule 76) jurisdictional.

Also, notice to known heirs and creditors of the decedent, and to any other person believed
to have an interest in the estate (per Sec. 4, Rule 76) if names and addresses are known (De
Arranz vs. Galing).


1. When there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by any cause
- including appeal from allowance or disallowance of will
2. court may appoint special administrator to take possession and charge of the estate of
the deceased
3. until
a. questions causing delay decided or
b. executors or administrators appointed

The appointment of a special administrator is justified only when there is delay in granting
letters, testamentary (in case the decedent leaves behind a will) or administrative (in the event
that the decedent leaves behind no will, as in the Petition at bar) occasioned by any cause. The
principal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until it
can pass into the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors
and heirs. (Tan vs. Gedorio, Jr., G.R. No. 166520, March 14, 2008)


Even in the appointment of a special administrator, same jurisdictional requirements

under Sec. 3, Rule 79.


Order appointing special administrator interlocutory in nature and mere incident in the
judicial proceedings, hence not appealable (Samson vs. Samson, 102 Phil. 735).
Sec. 1. Bonds to be given before issuance of letters. Amounts. Conditions.

Conditions of bond

make and return inventory within 3 months

administer estate
pay and discharge all debts, legacies, and charges
render accounting within one year
perform all orders of court

Sec. 1. Administration revoked if will discovered. Proceedings thereon.

1. If after letters of administration have been granted as if decedent died intestate, his will
is PROVED AND ALLOWED by the court,
2. letters of administration shall be REVOKED and all powers thereunder cease.
3. Administrator shall forthwith
a. Surrender letters to the court and
b. Render his account within such time as the court directs
4. proceedings for issuance of letters testamentary or of administration will follow.
Sec. 2. Court may remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator.
Proceedings upon death, resignation, or removal.
Concerning complaints against the general competence of the administrator, the proper
remedy is to seek the removal of the administrator in accordance with Section 2, Rule 82. While
the provision is silent as to who may seek with the court the removal of the administrator, a
creditor, even a contingent one, would have the personality to seek such relief. After all, the
interest of the creditor in the estate relates to the preservation of sufficient assets to answer for
the debt, and the general competence or good faith of the administrator is necessary to fulfill
such purpose. (Hilado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164108, May 8, 2009)
Sec. 3. Acts before revocation, resignation, or removal to be valid.
Effect of revocation, resignation or removal of executor or administrator on his
previous acts lawful acts shall have same validity as if no revocation, resignation or removal.

Rule on Precedence of Probate of Will

Sec. 1, Rule 82 was followed in Uriarte vs. CFI of Negros Occidental:

If in the course of intestate proceedings, it is found out that decedent left a last
probate proceedings should REPLACE intestate proceedings
even if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed.
Administrator is required to
render final account
turn over estate in his possession to executor subsequently appointed
Without prejudice that proceeding shall continue as intestacy should alleged will
be rejected or disapproved.

Probate of the will is mandatory (Sec. 1, Rule 75) and therefore takes precedence over
intestate proceedings.


Whether intestate proceedings already commenced should be discontinued and a new

proceeding under a separate number and title should be constituted entirely a MATTER OF
FORM and lies within SOUND DISCRETION of court. Does not prejudice substantial rights of
heirs and creditors (Intestate Estate of Wolfson, 45 SCRA 381).

Purpose of administration liquidation of the estate and distribution of the residue

among the heirs, legatees and devisees.

Liquidation (a) determination of all the assets of the estate and (b) payment of all
debts and expenses (Luzon Surety vs. Quebrar, 127 SCRA 301)

Powers and duties of executor and administrator

1. administration
2. liquidation
3. distribution

The administrator may only deliver properties of the estate to the heirs upon order of the Court.
(Silverio, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 178933, September 16, 2009)


Notice to creditors immediately after granting letters testamentary or of

administration, court shall issue
- NOTICE requiring all persons having MONEY CLAIMS against the estate
- to FILE them in the office of the clerk of court (Sec. 1).

Time for filing claims not more than 12 months nor less than 6 months after date
of FIRST PUBLICATION of the notice (Sec. 2).

New period allowed (Sec. 2, second sentence)

At any time before order of distribution is entered, creditor who failed to file his claim
within the time set may move to be allowed to file such claim.
Court may for good cause shown and on such terms as are just allow such claim to be
filed within a period NOT EXCEEDING ONE MONTH.
One month does not commence from expiration of the original period for filing claims. It
begins from the date of the order of the court allowing said filing (Barredo vs. CA, 6 SCRA 620

Statute of Non-Claims (SNC) the period fixed for the filing of claims against the

1. Period fixed by probate court must not be less than 6 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 it cannot be shortened.
ex. Period fixed within 6 months
3. SNC supersedes statute of limitations even if claim has not yet prescribed, it may be
barred by SNC.

Ruling spirit of our probate law SPEEDY SETTLEMENT of the estate of deceased
persons for the benefit of CREDITORS and those entitled to the RESIDUE by way of
INHERITANCE or LEGACY after the debts and expenses of administration have been
PAID (Sikat vs. Villanueva, 57 Phil. 486 [YEAR]).

Publication of notice to creditors (Sec. 3)

Immediately after notice to creditors is issued, executor or administrator shall cause 1.

publication of said notice 3 weeks successively in newspaper of general circulation in

the province, and


posting for the same period in

a. 4 public places in the province and
b. 2 public places in the municipality where decedent last resided


Hence, creditor cannot be permitted to file his claim beyond the period fixed in the notice
on the ground that he had no knowledge of the administration proceedings (Villanueva vs. PNB,
9 SCRA 145).

Claims that must be filed (Sec. 5)

1. Claims for money against the decedent arising from contract, express or implied,
whether due, not due or contingent
2. Claims for funeral expenses and expenses for last sickness of decedent
3. Judgment for money against decedent
a. The judgment must be presented as a claim against the estate where the judgment
debtor dies before levy on execution of his properties (Evangelista vs. La Provedra,
38 SCRA 379 [YEAR).
b. When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, and defendant dies
before entry of final judgment, it shall not be dismissed but shall be allowed to
continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by plaintiff shall
be enforced under Rule 86 (Rule 3, Sec. 20).

Money claims against a deceased debtor

1. Section 5 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court expressly allows the prosecution of money
claims arising from a contract against the estate of a deceased debtor. Those claims are not
actually extinguished. What is extinguished is only the obligees action or suit filed before the
court, which is not then acting as a probate court. In the present case, whatever monetary
liabilities or obligations Santos had under his contracts with respondent were not intransmissible
by their nature, by stipulation, or by provision of law. Hence, his death did not result in the
extinguishment of those obligations or liabilities, which merely passed on to his estate. Death is
not a defense that he or his estate can set up to wipe out the obligations under the performance
bond. (Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Republic-Asahi Glass Corporation, G.R. No.
147561, June, 2006)
2. Respondents monetary claim shall be governed by Section 20 (then Section 21), Rule 3
In relation to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. Thus, said money claims must be filed
against the estate of petitioner Melencio Gabriel. (Gabriel vs. Bilon, G.R. No. 146989, February
7, 2007)

Must be filed within the time limited in the notice, otherwise they are BARRED

Exception may be set forth as COUNTERCLAIMS in any action executor or

administrator may bring against the claimants.

Rationale: 1) to protect 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; 2) speedy settlement of
affairs of deceased; and 3) early delivery of property to distributes, legatees, or heirs
(Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Santibaez, G.R. No. 149926, February 23, 2005).

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.
A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the settlement of the
decedent's estate; more so if the claim is contingent since the claimant cannot even institute a

separate action for a mere contingent claim. Hence, herein petitioner's contingent money claim,
not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against non-forum shopping.
(Sheker vs. Estate of Alice Sheker, G.R. No. 157912, December 13, 2007)

Only MONEY CLAIMS may be presented in the testate or intestate proceedings.

NOT ALL MONEY CLAIMS but only those arising upon a liability contracted by decedent
before his death.

Claims arising after his death cannot be presented EXCEPT

- funeral expenses
- expenses for last sickness

Claims arising after decedents death may be allowed as expenses of

Enumeration exclusive refers only to contractual money claims

Only claims for money, debt or interest thereon, arising from contract can be presented
in the testate or intestate proceedings.

Claims which survive death of accused

Claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding death of accused if the same may also be
based on a source of obligation other than delict (contract, law, quasi-contract, quasi-delict)
Separate civil action may be enforced either against
a. Estate of accused (contract)
b. Executor/ administrator (law, quasi-contract, quasi-delict)
(People vs. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239 [1994]).
Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict do not fall within the class of claims to be filed under the
notice to creditors required under Rule 86. These actions, being civil, survive the death of the
decedent and may be commenced against the administrator pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87..
(Hilado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164108, May 8, 2009)

Execution of final judgment not proper remedy but filing of claim

When judgment in a civil case has become final and executory, execution not proper
remedy to enforce payment; claimant should PRESENT CLAIM before probate court (Domingo
vs. Garlitos, June 29, 1963).

Mandamus not available immediate payment of claim by the administrator is NOT A

MATTER OF RIGHT (Echaus vs. Blanco, 179 SCRA 704 [1985]).

Ordinary action for collection not allowed (Nacar vs. Nistal, 119 SCRA 29 [YEAR])

Judgment appealable (Sec. 13) judgment of the court approving or disapproving a

claim is APPEALABLE as in ordinary actions

From an estate proceeding perspective, the Special Administrators commission is no less a

claim against the estate than a claim that third parties may make. xxx The ruling on the extent
of the Special Administrators commission effectively, a claim by the special administrator

against the estate is the lower courts last word on the matter and one that is appealable .
(Briones vs. Henson-Cruz, G.R. No. 159130, August 22, 2008)

Sec. 1.

Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor
or administrator.

Sec. 2.

Executor or administrator may bring or defend actions which



recovery of money or debt or interest thereon.
- MUST BE AGAINST ESTATE (Secs. 1, 2 & 5, Rule 86)
2. ALLOWED actions which survive
a. Actions to recover real or personal property or interest thereon, or to enforce a lien

Civil Case No. 2570 is an action for quieting of title with damages which is an action involving
real property. It is an action that survives pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87 as the claim is not
extinguished by the death of a party. (Saligumba vs. Palanog, G.R. No. 143365, December 4,
Civil Case No. 3488, which is an action for the recovery of a personal property, a motor
vehicle, is an action that survives pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. As
such, it is not extinguished by the death of a party. (Sarsaba vs. Vda. de Te, G.R. No. 175910,
July 30, 2009)

b. Actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal

Executor or administrator may sue upon any cause of action which accrued to the
decedent during his lifetime (Bayot vs. Sorbito, 39 Phil. 650).

Any action affecting the property rights of a deceased which may be brought by or
against him if he were alive, may be instituted and prosecuted by or against the
administrator, unless by its very nature, it cannot survive, because death extinguishes
such right.
Sec. 3. Heir (and devisee) may not sue (executor or administrator to recover title
or possession or for damages to property) until share assigned.

Before distribution is made or before any residue known heirs and devisees have NO
CAUSE OF ACTION against the administrator for recovery of property left by the deceased
(Lao vs. Dee, 90 Phil. 868 [YEAR]).

When heirs may file action in court

General rule: heirs have no legal standing to sue for recovery or protection of property
rights of the deceased.


Pending the filing of administration proceedings under Art, 777, rights to

succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.
Administration proceedings have already been commenced but administrator has
not yet been appointed.
Executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit.
Administrator is alleged to have participated in the act complained of and he is
made a party defendant.

Sec. 8. Embezzlement before letters issued.

Double value rule

If before grant of letters testamentary or of administration, a person embezzles or

alienates money or property of the deceased liable to an action in favor of
executor/administrator for DOUBLE THE VALUE of the property sold, embezzled or alienated.
Sec. 1. Debts paid in full if estate sufficient
Sec. 2. Part of estate from which debt paid when provision made by will.
Sec. 7. Order of payment if estate insolvent
-- follow preference of credits under Arts. 1059, 2239-2251 of Civil Code


1. Executor/administrator allowed to pay debts (and legacies) for a period not more
than 1 year.
2. Extendible (on application of executor/ administrator and after notice and hearing)
not exceeding 6 months for a single extension.
3. Whole period allowed to original executor/administrator shall not exceed 2 years.
4. Successor of dead executor/administrator may have time extended on notice not
exceeding 6 months at a time and not exceeding 6 months beyond the time allowed
to original executor/administrator.
Sec. 6. Court to fix contributive shares where devisees, legatees or heirs have
been in possession.

1. Where devisees, legatees or heirs have entered into possession or the estate before
debts and expenses settled and paid, and
2. have become liable to contribute for payment of such debts and expenses,
3. Court may, after hearing, order settlement of their several liabilities and order how much
and in what manner each person shall contribute and may issue execution as
circumstances require.
NOTE: This provision clearly authorizes execution to enforce payment of the debts of
the estate. Legacy is not a debt of the estate legatees are among those against whom
execution is authorized to be issued (Pastor vs. CA, 122 SCRA 885 [1983]).
Compare to:

Rule 88, Secs. 15 & 16

Rule 89, Secs. 1-5, 7 (a)
referring to payment of debts and/or legacies

As ruled in Pastor, ordered payment of legacy violative of rule requiring prior liquidation
of estate (determination of assets of estate and payment of debts and expenses) before
apportionment and distributed of residue among heirs; legatees and devisees.
Correct rule: Sec. 1 of Rule 90 does not include legacies as among those that should
be paid before order of distribution only debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration,
allowance to widow and inheritance tax.
After debts and expenses of administration paid, residue given to heirs and those entitled
by way of inheritance or legacy (Magbanua vs. Akol, 72 Phil. 567). Purpose of administration
distribution of residue among heirs and legatees after payment of debts and expenses (Luzon
Surety vs. Quebrar, 127 SCRA 301).
Sec. 1. Order of sale of personality
-- when necessary for paying debts, expenses of administration, or
preservation of property

legacies, or for

Sec. 2. Sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of realty to pay debts and legacies
though personality not exhausted
-- when necessary and beneficial to persons interested (heirs, devisees and legatees)
Sec. 4. Sale of real or personal estate as beneficial to interested persons
-- when beneficial (to heirs, devisees and legatees, and other interested persons) but
not necessary to pay debts, legacies, or expenses of administration

Written notice mandatory

Written notice of the application (for authority to sell, mortgage or encumber property of
the estate) as well as the time and place of hearing to be served on heirs, devisees and
legatees residing in the Philippines is mandatory. Without such notice, the sale, mortgage or
encumbrance is VOID.

Sales executed by heirs

However, heirs can dispose of their own pro indiviso shares in the co-heirship or coownership. They can sell their rights, interests or participation in the property under
administration. A stipulation requiring court approval does not affect the validity and effectivity of
the sale as regards the selling heirs.

Writ of execution not proper procedure for payment of debts and expenses of

Upon motion of the administrator with notice to all heirs, legatees and devisees residing
in the Philippines, court shall order sale of personal property or sale or mortgage of real property
of the deceased to pay debts and expenses of administration out of the proceeds of the sale or
Exception: where devisees, legatees or heirs have entered into possession of their
respective portions in the estate prior to settlement and payment of debts and expenses (See
Sec. 6, Rule 88 above).

Sec. 1. When order for distribution of residue made

General rule: distribution of the residue to persons entitled thereto after notice and
hearing and after payment of
a. debts
b. funeral charges
c. expenses of administration
d. allowance to widow
e. inheritance tax
Exception: distribution before payment of obligations provided distributees give
BOND conditioned for payment thereof within such time as court directs.

Requisites before distribution of estate

1. Payment of obligations (liquidation of estate)
2. Declaration of heirs to determine to whom residue of the estate should be
distributed. Separate action for declaration of heirs not proper.

The Regional Trial Court in the instant case, acting in its general jurisdiction, is devoid of
authority to render an adjudication and resolve the issue of advancement of the real property in
favor of herein petitioner Natcher, inasmuch as Civil Case No. 71075 for reconveyance and
annulment of title with damages is not, to our mind, the proper vehicle to thresh out said
The net estate of the decedent must be ascertained, by deducting all payable obligations
and charges from the value of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his death;
then, all donations subject to collation would be added to it. With the partible estate thus
determined, the legitime of the compulsory heir or heirs can be established; and only then can it
be ascertained whether or not a donation had prejudiced the legitimes. (Heirs of Doronio versus
Heirs of Doronio. G.R. No. 169454, December 27, 2007)
Probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only AFTER payment
of all debts and remaining estate DELIVERED to heirs entitled to receive the same (Guilas vs.
Judge of CFI of Pampanga, 43 SCRA 111 ).
Finality of approval of project of partition by itself does NOT TERMINATE probate
proceeding (Timbol vs. Cano, 1 SCRA 1271 ).
A judicial partition is not final and conclusive and does not prevent the heir from bringing
an action to obtain his share, provided the prescriptive period has not closed (Mari vs. Bonilla,
83 SCRA 1137 ).
The RTC of Makati, acting as a special commercial court, has no jurisdiction to settle,
partition, and distribute the estate of a deceased.
A probate court has the power to enforce an accounting as a necessary means to its
authority to determine the properties included in the inventory of the estate to be administered,
divided up, and distributed. Beyond this, the determination of title or ownership over the subject
shares (whether belonging to Anastacia or Oscar) may be conclusively settled by the probate
court as a question of collation or advancement. (Reyes vs. RTC Makati, Branch 142, G.R. No.
165744, August 11, 2008)
Partial distribution of the estate should not have been allowed. There was no
determination on sufficiency of assets or absence of any outstanding obligations of the estate of
the late Raymond Triviere made by the RTC in this case. In fact, there is a pending claim by
LCN against the estate, and the amount thereof exceeds the value of the entire estate.

(Quasha Ancheta Pena and Nolasco Law Office vs. LCN Construction Corp., G.R. No. 174873,
August 26, 2008)
Although the right of an heir over the property of the decedent is inchoate as long as the
estate has not been fully settled and partitioned, the law allows a co-owner to exercise rights of
ownership over such inchoate right.
Once an action for the settlement of an estate is filed with the court, the properties included
therein are under the control of the intestate court. And not even the administrator may take
possession of any property that is part of the estate without the prior authority of the Court.
(Silverio, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 178933, September 16, 2009)
To demand his share through a. a proper motion in the same probate or administration proceedings, OR
b. motion to reopen if it had already been closed, and not through an independent
action which would be tried by another court or judge which might reverse a
decision or order of the probate court already final and executed and reshuffle
properties long ago distributed and disposed of (Guilas, supra).

Four cases illustrate the proper remedy: Vda de Lopez vs. Lopez, Divinagracia vs.
Rovira, Guillas vs. Judge of CFI of Pampanga and Heirs of Jesus Fran vs. Salas.

Lopez (35 SCRA 81 ) compared to Divinagracia (72 SCRA 307 ):

Both involved the issue of the reglementary period within which NON-PARTIES to the
partition, heir, devisee or any person interested in the estate, can reopen the case.
Conclusion if proceeding already closed, motion to reopen may be filed by a non-party
deprived of his lawful participation, as long as it is within 30 days (now 15 days) or before order
closing the proceedings becomes final.

Guilas (43 SCRA 111 ) compared to Fran (210 SCRA 303 ):

Both involved PARTIES who have not received their shares.

Conclusion parties to partition agreement who have not received their shares can file a
motion for execution within 5 YEARS. But if other grounds such as forgery of will are raised,
final judgment cannot be attacked except through a separate action. The validity of a final
judgment can be assailed through a petition for relief under Rule 38, annulment of judgment
under Rule 47, and petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assuming the judgment is void for want
of jurisdiction.
The intestate proceedings, although closed and terminated, can still be opened within the
prescriptive period upon petition by the preterited heir (Solivio vs. CA, 182 SCRA 119 ).
Prescriptive period 10 years. Action upon an obligation created by law must be brought
within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues (Art. 1144, Civil Code).

Where judgment has become final, what is the remedy for inclusion of a partyheir?

After the decision became final and executory, the trial judge lost jurisdiction over the case.
Any modification that he would make, i.e., the inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin would be in excess
of his authority. The remedy of Mary is to file an INDEPENDENT SUIT against the parties and

all other heirs for her share in the subject property, in order that all the parties in interest can
prove their respective claims (Nunal vs. CA, 221 SCRA 26 [1991]).


1. Petition
2. Hearing
3. Court Order
4. Claims Against Estate
5. Payment of Debts of Estate
6. Distribution and Partition of Estate
7. Closing


Filing of petition
for allowance
of will by executor,
devisee, legatee,
other interested person
(Rule 76, Secs. 1 & 2)

Filing of petition
for issuance of
letters of
administration person
(Rule 79, Sec. 2)

Order setting petition for hearing

Notice of hearing
1. Publication of notice for
three consecutive weeks
(Rule 76, Sec. 3)
2. Notice by mail or personally
to designated or known heirs,
legatees, devisees, executor
(Rule 76, Sec. 4);
known heirs, creditors,
other interested persons
(Rule 79, Sec. 3)

Proof of notice of hearing

(Rule 76, Sec. 5)

(Rule 79, Sec. 5)
Evidence for petitioner
1. Death of decedent
2. Residence at time of death
Testimony/ies of
(Rule 76 Secs. 5 & 11)

Decedent left no will or

there is no competent
and willing executor
(Rule 79, Sec. 5)
Petitioner is qualified for
(Rule 78, Secs. 1 & 6)

Proof when
testator is petitioner
(Rule 76, Sec. 12)
Evidence for Oppositor
File grounds for contest
(Rule 76, Sec. 10)

Order or decision allowing
will or admitting it to probate
Certificate of allowance
attached to prove will
(Rule 76, Sec. 13)
Order for issuance
of letters testamentary
(Rule 78, Sec. 4)
Order for issuance of
letters of administration
(Rule 79, Sec. 5)
Issuance of letters by clerk of court
Oath of executor or administrator
Filing of executor or administrators bond
(Rule 81, Sec. 1)

Filing of inventory within 3 mos.

(Rule 81, Sec. 1[a])
Accounting within 1 year
(Rule 81, Sec. 1 [c];
Rule 85, Sec. 8)
Actions by or against executor or administrator
(Rule 87)

Notice of filing of claims
time for filing not more than
12 mos. nor less than 6 mos.
from first publication
(Rule 86, Secs. 1 & 2)
Publication of notice
for 3 consecutive weeks
and posting
(Rule 86, Secs. 3 & 4)
Filing of claim and answer thereto
(Rule 86, Secs. 9 & 10)
Trial of contested claim
(Rule 86, Sec. 12)
Judgment approving or
disapproving claim
(Rule 86, Sec. 13)
Debts paid in full if estate sufficient
(Rule 88, Sec. 1)
Order of payment if estate insolvent
(Rule 88, Sec. 7)
Order for payment of debts
(Rule 88, Sec. 11)
Time for payment not to exceed
1 year, extendible for 1 more year
(Rule 88, Sec. 15)

Sales, mortgages and other encumbrances

of property of decedent for paying
debts. etc.
(Rule 89)

Rule 90
Approval of final accounting
and project of partition
Actual distribution or delivery to
heirs of their respective shares

Order declaring proceedings closed
and terminated

Escheat defined

Escheat is a proceeding whereby the real and personal property of a deceased person
in the Philippines, who died without leaving any will or legal heirs, become the property of the
state upon his death.

Nature of Escheat Proceedings


rests on the principle of ultimate ownership by the state of all property within its

Parties in Escheat Proceedings

An escheat proceeding is initiated by the government through the Solicitor General. All
interested parties, especially the
- actual occupants and
- adjacent lot owners
shall be personally notified of the proceeding and given opportunity to present their valid claims;
otherwise, it will be reverted to the state.

Requisites for filing petition for escheat

1. person died intestate
2. he left properties

3. he left no heirs or persons entitled to the same.

Notice and Publication (Sec. 2, Rule 91)

1. Date of hearing not more than 6 months after entry of order.

2. Publication of order at least once a week for 6 consecutive weeks in newspaper of
general circulation in the province.

Publication jurisdictional

Publication of the notice of hearing is a jurisdictional requisite, non-compliance with

which affects the validity of the proceedings (Divino v. Hilario, 62 Phil. 926).
Filing of claim to estate (Sec. 4, Rule 91)
1. Devisee, legatee, widow, widower or other person entitled to such estate who
2. appears and files claim thereto within 5 years from date of judgment
(Note: 5-year period is prescribed to encourage would-be claimants to be punctilious in
asserting their claims, otherwise they may lose them forever in a final judgment.)
3. shall have possession and title thereto or if sold, municipality or city accountable to him
for proceeds, after deducting reasonable charges of care of estate.
4. Claim not made within said time barred forever.

Guardianship a trust relation in which one person acts for another whom the law
regards as incapable of managing his own affairs. The person who acts is called the
guardian and the incompetent is called the ward.

Basis of Guardianship (Parens Patriae)

Where minors are involved, the State acts as parens patriae. It is the duty of protecting
the rights of persons or individuals who because of age or incapability are in an unfavorable
position vis--vis other parties.

Purpose of Guardianship

Safeguard the rights and interests of minors and incompetent persons Courts should be
vigilant to see that the rights of such persons are properly protected.

Guardian a person in whom the law has entrusted the custody and control of the
person or estate or both of an infant, insane, or other person incapable of managing his
own affairs.

The rules do not necessitate that creditors of the minor or incompetent be likewise
identified and notified. The reason is simple: because their presence is not essential to the
proceedings for appointment of a guardian. They will only insist that the supposed minor or
incompetent is actually capacitated to enter into contracts, so as to preserve the validity of said
contracts and keep the supposed minor or incompetent obligated to comply therewith. (Alamayri
vs. Pabale, G.R. No. 151243, April 30, 2008)

Governing rule on guardianship of minors

Guardianship of minors as distinguished from incompetents other than minority is now

governed by the RULE ON GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS (A.M. No. 003-03-05-SC).
Sections 1 and 27 of the RGM make it clear that it shall apply only to petitions for
guardianship over the person, property or both, of a minor. Petitions for guardianship of

incompetents who are not minors shall continue to be governed by Rules 92-97 and heard and
tried by regular Regional Trial Courts.
Rules 92-97 may therefore be deemed modified by the RGM.

Who may petition for appointment of guardian of incompetent (Sec. 1, Rule 92)?

Relative, friend, or other person on behalf of incompetent who has no parent or lawful
guardian, for the appointment of a general guardian for the person or estate or both of such

Who may petition for appointment of guardian of minor (Sec. 2, RGM)?

1. Relative or other person on behalf of the minor

2. Minor himself if 14 years of age or over
for the appointment of a general guardian over the person or property, or both, of such
The petition may also be filed by the Secretary of Social Welfare and Development and
Secretary of Health in the case of an insane minor person who needs to be hospitalized.

Jurisdictional facts (Sec. 2, Rule 93)

1. incompetency of person for whom guardianship is sought
2. domicile

Notice of application and hearing (Sec. 3) NO PUBLICATION REQUIRED

Notice of hearing of the petition shall be served on
1. persons mentioned in the petition residing in the Philippines
2. incompetent himself
* minor if 14 years of age or over (Sec. 8, RGM)

Service of notice upon the minor if 14 years of age or over or upon the incompetent is
jurisdictional. Without such notice, the court acquired no jurisdiction to appoint a guardian (Nery
vs. Lorenzo, 44 SCRA 431 [1972]).
Sec. 7, Rule 93. Parents as guardians When the property of the child under parental
authority is worth two thousand pesos or less, the father or the mother, without the necessity of
court appointment, shall be his legal guardian. When the property of the child is worth more
than two thousand pesos, the father or the mother shall be considered guardian of the childs
property, with the duties and obligations of guardians under these Rules, and shall file the
petition required by Section 2 hereof. For good reasons, the court may, however, appoint
another suitable person.
Sec. 16, RGM. Bond of parents as guardians of property of minor. - If the market value of the
property or the annual income of the child exceeds P50,000.00, the parent concerned shall
furnish a bond in such amount as the court may determine, but in no case less than ten per
centum of the value of such property or annual income, to guarantee the performance of the
obligations prescribed for general guardians.
Rule 98
Sec. 1.

When trustee appointed

A trustee necessary to carry into effect the provisions of a

a. Will
b. Written instrument


shall be appointed by the RTC in which the will is allowed, or

RTC of the province in which the property or some portion thereof affected by the
trust is situated

Exercise of sound judgment by the court in the appointment of a trustee

Although the will does not name a trustee, the probate court exercises sound judgment
in appointing a trustee to carry into effect the provisions of the will where a trust is actually
created by the will by the provision that certain of the property shall be kept together undisposed
during a fixed period and for a stated purpose (Lorenzo v. Posadas, 64 Phil. 353).

Acquiring the trust by prescription

A trustee may acquire the trust estate by prescription provided there is a repudiation of
the trust, such repudiation being open, clear and unequivocal, known to the cestui qui trust
(Salinas vs. Tuazon, 55 Phil. 729).

Rule on Adoption (A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC), August 22, 2002, which repealed Rules
99-100, now governs adoption.

There is also the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1997 (RA 8043) procedure allowing
aliens, not presently allowed by law to adopt Filipino children if such children cannot be
adopted by qualified Filipino citizens or aliens, when beneficial to the child best interests,
and shall serve and protected his/her fundamental rights.

Nature and concept of adoption

Adoption is a juridical act, a proceeding in rem which creates between two persons a
relationship similar to that which results from legitimate paternity and filiation.

Purpose of Adoption

Adoption used to be for the benefit of the adoptor. It was intended to afford persons who
have no child of their own the consolation of having one by creating thru legal fiction the relation
of paternity and filiation where none exists by blood relationship.
Present tendency more toward the promotion of
- the welfare of the child, and
- enhancement of his opportunities for a useful and happy life.
Every intendment is sustained to promote that objective.
Under the law now in force, having legitimate, legitimated, acknowledged natural
children or children by legal fiction is no longer a ground for disqualification to adopt.

Objectives of Rule on Adoption

a. Best interests of child paramount consideration in all matters relating to his care,
custody and adoption.
b. The state shall provide alternative protection and assistance thru foster care or
adoption for every child who is foundling, neglected, orphaned, or abandoned.

Who may adopt

- of legal age
- in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights

- of good moral character

- has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude
- emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children
- at least 16 yrs. older than the adoptee
* may be waived when adopter is biological parent of adoptee or is spouse of
adoptees parent
- in a position to support and care for his children in keeping with means of the
2. Any ALIEN possessing same qualifications, subject to certain conditions.


a) if one spouse seeks to adopt legitimate child of the other;
b) if one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child (provided the other spouses
signified his consent thereto)
c) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.
In case husband and wife jointly adopt or one spouse adopts the
the other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.

illegitimate child of

Whose consent necessary

1. biological parents of adoptee, if known
*However, consent of biological parents, even if they are known, is not necessary if
they have ABANDONED the child (Lang vs. CA, 298 SCRA 128 [1998]).

adoptee, if 10 years of age or older

legitimate or adopted children of adopter or adoptee, if 10 years of age or older
illegitimate children of adopter, if living with him, if 10 years of age or older
spouse of adopter or adoptee

Change of name
In case petition also prays for change of name, title or caption must contain:
1. registered name of child
2. aliases of other names by which child has been known
3. full name by which child is to be known

Adoption is action in rem involves the status of persons.

Decree of Adoption
If supervised trial custody SATISFACTORY and

court CONVINCED from trial custody report and evidence adduced that
adoption shall redound to BEST INTERESTS of adoptee
DECREE OF ADOPTION issued which shall take effect as of date original petition filed
even if petitioners DIE before issuance
Adoption strictly between adopter and adopted

If adopting parent should die before adopted child, latter cannot represent the adopter in
the inheritance from the parents and ascendants of the adopter
Adopted child is not related to the deceased in that case because filiation created by
fiction of law is exclusive between adopted and adopter.
By adoption, the adopters can make for themselves an heir but they cannot make one
for their relatives.


Filed by adoptee
over 18 years of age
with assistance of DSWD, if minor
by guardian or counsel, if over 18 but incapacitated
Grounds committed by ADOPTER:
1. repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by adopter despite having undergone
2. attempt on life of adoptee
3. sexual assault or violence
4. abandonment or failure to comply with parental obligations

Adoption, being for best interests of child, not subject to rescission by ADOPTER

Time within which to file petition

If MINOR within 5 yrs. after reaching age of majority

If INCOMPETENT within 5 yrs. after recovery from incompetency.

Financial qualification in adoption

Since the primary consideration in adoption is the best interest of the child, it follows that
the financial capacity of prospective parents should also be carefully evaluated and considered.
Certainly, the adopter should be in a position to support the would-be adopted child or children,
in keeping with the means of the family..(Landingin vs. Republic, G.R. No. 164948, June 27,

An illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father, may use the surname of
her natural mother as her middle name. (In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie
Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005.)
RULE 102

To what habeas corpus extends (Sec. 1)

1. All cases of illegal confinement of detention
2. by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or
3. by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
Purpose of habeas corpus relieve a person from unlawful restraint.
1. to obtain immediate relief from illegal confinement

person entitled

2. to liberate those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause

3. to deliver them from unlawful custody
Essentially a writ of inquiry and is granted to test the right under which a person is
detained (Velasco v. CA, 245 SCRA 677 [YEAR]).
It is a remedy intended to determine whether the person under detention is held under
lawful authority (Sombong v. CA, 21, 1966).
It is a summary remedy. (Caballes vs. CA, G.R. No. 163108, February 23, 2005)

When constitutional rights disregarded writ may issue

Exceptional remedy to
release a person whose liberty is illegally restrained such as when the constitutional
rights of the accused are disregarded.

Such defect results in the absence or loss of jurisdiction and therefore invalidates the
trial and consequent conviction of the accused. That void judgment may be challenged by
collateral attack which precisely is the function of habeas corpus.
This writ may issue even if another remedy which is less effective may be availed of
failure by accused to perfect his appeal before the CA does not preclude recourse to the writ.
The writ may be granted upon a judgment already final (Chavez v. CA, 24 SCRA 663

Distinction between writ and citation

Preliminary citation requiring the respondent to appear and show cause why the
peremptory writ should not be granted
Peremptory writ of habeas corpus unconditionally commanding the respondent to
have the body of the detained person before the court at a time and place therein specified.

Grant of writ

When court is satisfied that prisoner does not desire to appeal, the prisoner shall be
forthwith released (Sec. 15, Rule 102)

Period to appeal within 48 hours from notice of judgment or final order appealed from
(A.M.N. 01-1-03-SC, July 19, 2001).

Writ as a consequence of judicial proceedings


where there has been deprivation of constitutional rights resulting in restraint of

where court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence
excessive penalty has been imposed, thus sentence is void as to excess
(Andal v. People, 307 SCRA 605 [1999])

Habeas corpus as a post-conviction remedy

The writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases of illegal confinement or detention in
which individuals are deprived of liberty.
The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or
by virtue of a valid judgment. However, as a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed when, as
a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is
attendant: (1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a
person; (2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (3) the imposed penalty has
been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess. (Go vs. Dimagiba, G.R. No.
151876, June 21, 2005)

No right to bail where applicant is serving sentence by reason of final judgment

Respondent judge contends that under Section 14, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, he
has the discretion to allow Te to be released on bail. However, the Court reiterates its
pronouncement in its Resolution of February 19, 2001 in G.R. Nos. 145715-18 that Section 14,
Rule 102 of the Rules of Court applies only to cases where the applicant for the writ of habeas
corpus is restrained by virtue of a criminal charge against him and not in an instance, as in the
case involved in the present controversy, where the applicant is serving sentence by reason of a
final judgment. (Vicente vs. Majaducon, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1698 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 00-1024RTJ), June 23, 2005)

Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases

involving custody of minors

There is nothing in RA 8369 which revoked the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to issue
writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of minors. (In the Matter of Application for the
Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus: Thornton vs. Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, August 16,
2004) In fact, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction with family
courts in habeas corpus cases where the custody of minors is involved. (Madrian vs.
Madrian, G.R. No. 159374, July 12, 2007)

Marital rights including co-venture and living in conjugal dwelling may not be
enforced by the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus. (Ilusorio vs. Bildner, et.al.,
G.R. No. 139808, May 12, 2000)

Order to produce body not a grant of the remedy of habeas corpus

In a habeas corpus petition, the order to present an individual before the court is a
preliminary step in the hearing of the petition. The respondent must produce the person and
explain the cause of his detention. However, this order is not a ruling on the propriety of the
remedy or on the substantive matters covered by the remedy. Thus, the Courts order to the
Court of Appeals to conduct a factual hearing was not an affirmation of the propriety of the
remedy of habeas corpus. (In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Alejano vs.
Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005)

Writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued once person is charged with a criminal

Under Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ of habeas corpus extends to
all case of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by
which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. The
remedy of habeas corpus has one objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person,
and if found illegal, the court orders the release of the detainee. If, however, the detention is
proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. (In the Matter of the Petition for
Habeas Corpus of Kunting, G.R. No. 167193, April 19, 2006)

Habeas corpus in custody cases

Habeas corpus may be resorted to in cases where rightful custody is withheld from a
person entitled thereto. Under Article 211 of the Family Code, respondent Loran and petitioner
Marie Antonette have joint parental authority over their son and consequently joint custody.
Further, although the couple is separated de facto, the issue of custody has yet to be
adjudicated by the court. In the absence of a judicial grant of custody to one parent, both
parents are still entitled to the custody of their child. In the present case, private respondents
cause of action is the deprivation of his right to see his child as alleged in his petition. Hence,
the remedy of habeas corpus is available to him.
In a petition for habeas corpus, the childs welfare is the supreme consideration. The Child
and Youth Welfare Code unequivocally provides that in all questions regarding the care and
custody, among others, of the child, his welfare shall be the paramount consideration.
(Salientes vs. Abanilla, G.R. No. 162734, August 29, 2006)

Retroactive effect of favorable law - People vs. Caco, 269 SCRA 271 (1997)

1. Caco sentenced to life imprisonment for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 6425)
2. Filed motion for modification of sentence pursuant to RA 7659 and People v. Simon
that where marijuana less than 200 grams penalty is prision correccional
3. Petition granted provisions of RA 7659 favorable to accused should be given
retroactive effect.
4. Where decision already final, appropriate remedy of accused to secure release from
prison is petition for habeas corpus

Bernarte vs. CA, 263 SCRA 323 (1996)

1. Once person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer

question his detention by petition for habeas corpus
2. Remedy: motion to quash the information and/or warrant of arrest
3. Filing of bond for temporary release is waiver of illegality of detention

Paredes vs. SB, 193 SCRA 464: absence of preliminary investigation not a ground for
habeas corpus. Remedy: motion to quash warrant of arrest and/or information, or ask for

Note: Rule 114, Sec. 26 of 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: Bail not a bar to
objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation, provided he raises them
BEFORE entering his plea

Larraaga vs. CA, 287 SCRA 581 (1998) Kidnapping & serious illegal detention

1. Filing of charges and issuance of warrant of arrest cures defect of

invalid detention
2. Absence of preliminary investigation will not nullify information and warrant of arrest

Galvez vs. CA, 237 SCRA 685

1. Habeas corpus and certiorari may be ancillary where necessary to give effect to
supervisory power of higher courts
2. Habeas corpus reaches body and jurisdictional matters but not the records
3. Certiorari reaches record but not the body
4. Not appropriate for asserting right to bail file petition to be admitted to bail

Velasco vs. CA, 245 SCRA 667 (1995)

Even if arrest illegal, supervening events may bar his release or discharge from custody,
such as filing of complaint and issuance of order denying petition to bail.

Latest Jurisprudence

Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for the issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus may be availed of in cases of illegal confinement by which any person is
deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person
entitled thereto. In Feria v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the writ may also be issued
where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, (a) there has been a deprivation of a
constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (b) the court had no jurisdiction to
impose the sentence; or (c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is void
as to such excess. (In the Matter of the Application for the Writ of Habeas Corpus Reclassifying
Sentence to R.A. NO. 8353 in Behalf of Rogelio Ormilla, et al. vs, The Director, Bureau of
Corrections, G.R. No. 170497, January 22, 2007)
Petitioner was detained pursuant to a final judgment of the Quezon City RTC convicting him
for the crimes of carnapping and illegal possession of firearms. He is therefore not entitled to the
writ of habeas corpus. The rule is that if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in

custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or

order of a court of record the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed. (Barredo vs. Vinarao,.
G.R. No. 168728, August 2, 2007)
Once a person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention
through a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. His remedy would be to quash the
information and/or the warrant of arrest duly issued. The writ of habeas corpus should not be
allowed after the party sought to be released had been charged before any court. The term
court includes quasi-judicial bodies or governmental agencies authorized to order the persons
confinement, like the Deportation Board of the Bureau of Immigration.
The provisional or temporary release of Gao Yuan also effectively granted the petition for
habeas corpus insofar as the discharge of the detainee is concerned, since the main prayer in a
petition for habeas corpus relates to the release or discharge of the detainee. The general rule
is that the release, whether permanent or temporary, of a detained person renders the petition
for habeas corpus moot and academic. Such release must be one which is free from
involuntary restraints. Gao Yuans release, while still subject to certain conditions, did not
unduly restrain her movements or deprive her of her constitutional freedoms. (Office of the
Solicitor General vs. Judge de Castro, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2018 (Formerly Adm. Matter OCA-IPI
No. 05-2360-RTJ), August 3, 2007)
In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or not a
particular person is legally held. A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas
corpus, in fact, is an actual and effective, and not merely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of
liberty. (In the Matter of the Petition of Habeas Corpus of Eufemia Rodriguez vs. Luisa
Villanueva, G.R. No. 169482, January 29, 2008)
The record shows that Judge Perello granted the writs of habeas corpus even without the
pertinent copies of detention and judgment of conviction. This is contrary to the provisions of
Section 3(d) of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court. The Rules clearly require that a copy of the
commitment or cause of detention must accompany the application for the writ of habeas
corpus. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Perello, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1952, December
24, 2008)
Strict compliance with the technical requirements for a habeas corpus petition as provided in
the Rules of Court may be dispensed with where the allegations in the application are sufficient
to make out a case for habeas corpus. Nonetheless, we agree with the OSG that petitioner is
not entitled to the issuance of the writ. A convict may be released on parole after serving the
minimum period of his sentence. However, the pendency of another criminal case is a ground
for the disqualification of such convict from being released on parole. (Fletcher vs. The Director
of Bureau of Corrections, UDK-14071, July 17, 2009)
The writ of habeas corpus should not be allowed after the party sought to be released had
been charged before any court. The term court in this context includes quasi-judicial bodies of
governmental agencies authorized to order the persons confinement, like the Deportation
Board of the Bureau of Immigration. Likewise, the cancellation of his bail cannot be assailed via
a petition for habeas corpus. When an alien is detained by the Bureau of Immigration for
deportation pursuant to an order of deportation by the Deportation Board, the Regional Trial
Courts have no power to release such alien on bail even in habeas corpus proceedings
because there is no law authorizing it.(Go, Sr. vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 167569, September 4,
A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention or by which
the rightful custody of person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. Respondent, as the
judicial guardian of Lulu, was duty-bound to care for and protect her ward. For her to perform
her obligation, respondent must have custody of Lulu. Thus, she was entitled to a writ of habeas
corpus after she was unduly deprived of the custody of her ward. (Hernandez vs. San JuanSantos, G.R. No. 166470, August 7, 2009)



promulgated on October 24, 2007, in light of the prevalence of extralegal killing and
enforced disappearances

provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only
substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; not an
action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for
damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring
substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings

Both preventive and curative

It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these

offenses; it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it will
inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action.

Ultimate goal

to deter the further commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances

Extralegal killings killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal
safeguards or judicial proceedings.

Enforced disappearances attended by the following characteristics: an arrest,

detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or
private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the
refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the
protection of law.

Petitioner aggrieved party, or any qualified person or entity (Sec. 2, A.M. No. 07-9-12SC)

Venue Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Sandiganbayan (Manila) or RTC of

place where threat, act, or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred
(Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
> May be filed on any day and at any time and is exempt from docket and other lawful
fees (Secs. 3 and 4, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)

Extent of Enforceability anywhere in the Philippines

How served personally; but if it cannot be served personally, rules on substituted

service shall apply (Sec. 8, A.M. No. 07-9-12)

Interim Reliefs (Sec. 14, A.M. No. 07-9-12)


Temporary Protection Order

Inspection Order
Production Order
Witness Protection Order

Effect of filing criminal action (Sec. 21, A.M. 07-9-12)

>When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall
be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case.


The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court is not
included among the enumeration of rights 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. (Canlas vs. Napico
Homeowners Association I XIII, Inc.,. G.R. No. 182795, June 5, 2008)
We are far from satisfied with the prima facie existence of the ultimate facts that would justify
the issuance of a writ of amparo. Rather than acts of terrorism that pose a continuing threat to
the persons of the petitioners, the violent incidents alleged appear to us to be purely propertyrelated and focused on the disputed land. If the petitioners wish to seek redress and hold the
alleged perpetrators criminally accountable, the remedy may lie more in the realm of ordinary
criminal prosecution rather than on the use of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of amparo.
(Tapuz vs. Judge del Rosario, G.R. No.182484, June 17, 2008)
While the right to life under Article III, Section 1 guarantees essentially the right to be alive upon which the enjoyment of all other rights is preconditioned - the right to security of person is
a guarantee of the secure quality of this life.
First, the right to security of person is freedom from fear. (Universal Declaration of Human
Rights [UDHR] and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR]) The
Philippines is a signatory to both the UDHR and the ICCPR.
Second, the right to security of person is a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or
security. (Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution)
Third, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of ones rights by the
government. Protection includes conducting effective investigations, organization of the
government apparatus to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced
disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families, and bringing offenders to the bar of
justice. (The Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008)


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.


designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age by

means of an individual complaint presented in a constitutional court
specifically, protects the image, privacy, honor, information, self-determination, and
freedom of information of a person


Petitioner (Sec. 2, A.M. No. 08-16-SC)

February 2, 2008

GENERAL RULE: aggrieved party

EXCEPT: in cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances:
1) immediate family;
2) in default of no. 1, ascendant, descendant, or collateral relative within the 4 th
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity

Venue (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)


Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Sandiganbayan (Manila)
Regional Trial Court
where petitioner resides
where respondent resides
which has jurisdiction over place where data/ information is gathered

Extent of enforceability anywhere in the Philippines

Service personal; if cannot be served personally on respondent, rules on substituted

service shall apply (Sec. 9, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)

Effect of filing criminal action

When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ
shall be filed. The relief under the writ shall be available to an aggrieved party by motion
in the criminal case.

Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material
allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it
affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data
or information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office,
and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information, if
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,
suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the
respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order
enjoining the act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.

We see no concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy

related to the right to life, liberty or security. The petition likewise has not alleged, much less
demonstrated, any need for information under the control of police authorities other than those it
has already set forth as integral annexes. The necessity or justification for the issuance of the
writ, based on the insufficiency of previous efforts made to secure information, has not also
been shown. In sum, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is nothing more than
the fishing expedition that this Court - in the course of drafting the Rule on habeas data - had
in mind in defining what the purpose of a writ of habeas data is not. In these lights, the outright
denial of the petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas data is fully in order. (Tapuz vs.
Judge Rosario, G.R. No.182484, June 17, 2008)

RULE 103

Purpose of Rule

Under Art. 376, Civil Code no person can change his name or
juridical authority

surname without

Involving substantial changes, objective is the prevention of fraud.

Nature of proceeding

To establish the status of a person involving his relation with others, that is, his legal
position in, or, with regard to the rest of the community

Who may file petition

Person all natural persons regardless of status
1. Adopted child (Rep. v. Wong, 209 SCRA 189)
2. Alien - - domiciled in the Philippines, not one temporarily staying

Jurisdictional requirements
1. Publication of petition for 3 consecutive weeks in newspaper, etc.
2. Both title or caption and body shall recite
a. name or names or alias of applicant
b. cause for which change of name is sought
c. new name asked for

Reason: change of name a matter of public interest

- petitioner might be in rogues gallery or hiding to avoid service of sentence or
escaped from prison
- if alien might have given case for deportation, or subject of deportation order

Must show prejudice by official name

1. ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce
2. change will avoid confusion
having continuously used and been known since childhood by such name
3. sincere desire to adopt Filipino name to erase signs of foreign alienage, all in good
faith, and no showing that desired name for fraudulent purpose

Latest jurisprudence

The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of
identification. A change of name is a privilege and not a right, so that before a person can be
authorized to change his name, he must show proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling
reason which may justify such change.
Grounds for change of name which have been held valid:
1) Name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
2) Change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation;
3) Change will avoid confusion;
4) When one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino
name, and was unaware of alien parentage;
5) Sincere desire to adopt Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good
faith and without prejudicing anybody;
6) Surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of
name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice
public interest.
Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well as further
distinguish him from others who may have the same given name and surname as he has. In
the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for dropping his middle name is
convenience (In Re Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction/Cancellation of Entry of
Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, G.R. No. 159966, March 30, 2005)

Under Art. 176 of the Civil Code, Giovanni is entitled to change his name as he was never
recognized by his father while his mother has always recognized him as her child. A change of
name will erase the impression that he was ever recognized by his father. It is also his best
interest as it will facilitate his mothers intended petition to have him join her in the United
States. The Court will not stand in the way of the reunification of moter and son. (Republic of
the Philippines vs. Capote, G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007)
The court shall grant the petition under Rule 103 only when satisfactory proof has been
presented in open court that the order had been published as directed, the allegations in the
petition are true, and proper and reasonable causes appear for changing the name of the
petitioner. (Re: Final Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the RTC, Br. 67, Paniqui, Tarlac,
A.M. No. 06-7-414-RTC, October 19, 2007)
As for respondents change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of
name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons
adduced and the consequences that will follow. The trial courts grant of respondents change of
name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name.
Considering the consequence that respondents change of name merely recognizes his
preferred gender, we find merit in respondents change of name. Such a change will conform
with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male. (Republic vs.
Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008)

RULE 107


person disappears from domicile

whereabouts unknown
no agent to administer property or power conferred on agent has expired

Who may petition

1. interested party
- preferred (Sec. 7)
(a) spouse present
(b) competent person
2. relative
3. friend

To represent him provisionally in all that may be necessary

General rule:

No independent action for declaration of presumption of death presumption may arise

and be invoked in an action or special proceeding
Under Art. 41 of Family Code, for purpose of present spouse contracting a second
marriage, must file summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the latters reappearance.
This is intended to protect present spouse from criminal prosecution for bigamy under
Art. 349 of RPC.

With judicial declaration that missing spouse is presumptively dead, good faith of present
spouse in contracting marriage is established.

Period of absence of spouse before subsequent marriage

- 4 consecutive years well founded belief that absent spouse already dead
- 2 years danger of death
RULE 108

Who may file petition

1. Any person interested in any
- act
- event
- decree
2. concerning the civil status of persons
3. which has been recorded in the civil registry

Correction of entry under Rule 108 proceeding in rem publication binds the
whole world

Substantial corrections or cancellations of entries in civil registry records affecting the status
or legitimacy of a person may be effected through the institution of a petition under Rule 108 of
the Revised Rules of Court, with the proper Regional Trial Court. Being a proceeding in rem,
acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is therefore not required in the present
case. It is enough that the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The service of the order at No. 418 Arquiza St., Ermita, Manila and the publication thereof in
a newspaper of general circulation in Manila, sufficiently complied with the requirement of due
process, the essence of which is an opportunity to be heard. The publication of the order is a
notice to all indispensable parties, including Armi and petitioner minor, which binds the whole
world to the judgment that may be rendered in the petition. (Alba vs. CA, G.R. No. 164041, July
29, 2005)

Indispensable parties must be notified

Under Sec. 3, Rule 108 not only the civil registrar but also all persons who have or claim
any interest which would be affected by a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction
of an entry in the civil register must be made parties thereto.
No party could be more interested in the cancellation of Rosilyns birth certificate than
Rosilyn herself. Her filiation, legitimacy, and date of birth are at stake.
The lack of summons on Rosilyn was not cured by the publication of the order of the trial
court setting the case for hearing for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation. Summons must still be served, not for the purpose of vesting the courts with
jurisdiction, but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process. This is but proper,
to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect her interest if she so chooses. (Ceruila
vs. Delantar, G.R. No. 140305, December 9, 2005)

Administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors

The obvious effect of Republic Act 9048 is merely to make possible the administrative
correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of first name or nickname in entries in the
civil register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry in
appropriate adversarial proceedings. (Republic v. Benemerito G.R. No. 146963, March 15,

Change of name under Rule 108

The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048 has been considered to lend
legislative affirmation to the judicial precedence that substantial corrections to the civil status of
persons recorded in the civil registry may be effected through the filing of a petition under Rule
108. When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are followed, the appropriate
adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections to the entries of the civil
register is satisfied.
With respect to the correction in Carlitos birth certificate of his name from Carlito John to
Carlito, the same was properly granted under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. As correctly
pointed out by the CA, the cancellation or correction of entries involving changes of name falls
under letter o of the following provision of Section 2 of Rule 108: Entries subject to
cancellation or correction. Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil
register may be cancelled or corrected: x x x (o) changes of name. Hence, while the
jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 (which governs petitions for change of name) were not
complied with, observance of the provisions of Rule 108 suffices to effect the correction sought
More importantly, Carlitos official transcript of record from the Urious College in Butuan
City,certificate of eligibility from the Civil Service Commission, and voter registration record
satisfactorily show that he has been known by his first name only. No prejudice is thus likely to
arise from the dropping of the second name. (Republic vs. Kho, G.R. No. 170340, June 28,

No intent on the part of the lawmakers to remove the authority of the trial courts to
make judicial corrections of entries in the civil registry

It can be concluded that the local civil registrar has primary, not exclusive, jurisdiction over
such petitions for correction of clerical errors and change of first name or nickname, with R.A.
No. 9048 prescribing the procedure that the petitioner and local civil registrar should follow.
Since R.A. No. 9048 refers specifically to the administrative summary proceeding before the
local civil registrar it would be inappropriate to apply the same procedure to petitions for the
correction of entries in the civil registry before the courts. ( Re: Final Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted at the Regional Trial Court, Br. 67, Paniqui, Tarlac, A.M. No. 06-7-414-RTC, October
19, 2007).

Change of first name is within the primary jurisdiction of the local civil registrar

RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. It vests the power and authority to entertain
petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general
concerned. Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is
now primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect of the
law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name)
and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until
and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied.
It likewise lays down the corresponding venue, form and procedure. In sum, the remedy and the
proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial
(Silverio vs Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007)

Change of sex or gender allowed where person has both male and female sexual

The trial court ordered the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent to
change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition known
as Congenital Adrenal Hyerplasia (CAH), and her name from Jennifer to Jeff, under Rules
103 and 108 of the Rules of Court. CAH is one of many conditions that involve intersex
anatomy. The term intersexuality applies to human beings who cannot be classified as either
male or female. We respect respondents congenital condition and his mature decision to be a
As for respondents change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of
name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons
adduced and the consequences that will follow. The trial courts grant of respondents change
of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name.
Considering the consequence that respondents change of name merely recognizes his
preferred gender, we find merit in respondents change of name. Such a change will conform

with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male (Republic vs. Jennifer
Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008).
A persons first name cannot be changed on the ground of sex reassignment
Petitioner sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from Rommel Jacinto to
Mely, and his sex from male to female. Petitioners basis in praying for the change of his
first name was his 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 ones legal capacity or civil status. RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name
on the ground of sex reassignment. To correct simply means to make or set aright; to remove
the faults or error from while to change means to replace something with something else of the
same kind or with something that serves as a substitute. The birth certificate of petitioner
contained no error. All entries therein, including those corresponding to his first name and sex,
were all correct. No correction is necessary. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing
petitioners 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 failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his
true and official name. (Silverio vs Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007)

Registered name of illegitimate child

An illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a given
name and his mothers surname, and does not have a middle name. The name of the
unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such. It is only when the illegitimate
child is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents or acknowledged by the father in
a public document or private handwritten instrument that he bears both his mothers surname as
his middle name and his fathers surname as his surname, reflecting his status as a legitimated
child or an acknowledged illegitimate child. Accordingly, the registration in the civil registry of the
birth of such individuals requires that the middle name be indicated in the certificate. The
registered name of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized illegitimate child thus contains a
given or proper name, a middle name, and a surname. (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).

Earlier Jurisprudence

Ty Kong Tin (1954): followed by Chua Wee vs. Rep., Wong vs. Rep., Rep. vs. Medina
Rule 108 should be limited solely to implementation of Art. 412, the substantive law on the
matter of correcting errors in the civil register.
Art. 412 contemplates a summary procedure, involving correction of clerical errors, or a
harmless, innocuous nature, not changes involving civil status, nationality or citizenship, which are
substantial and/or controversial
Rep. vs. Macli-ing (
) proceedings, although filed under Rule 108, not summary
because published for 3 consecutive weeks; SolGen notified and filed opposition, etc.
Rep. vs. Valencia (141 SCRA 462 [1986]) turning point, paradigm shift:
Rule 108 embodies two kinds of proceedings:
1. procedure summary in nature for correcting clerical or unsubstantial matters to make
it less tedious and expensive
2. procedure adversary in nature to govern proceedings involving substantial changes
If all procedural requirements have been followed, petition for
cancellation even if filed under Rule 108 no longer summary.


Even substantial errors may be corrected and true facts established prov. parties
aggrieved by the error avail of the appropriate adversary proceeding.

Appropriate proceeding:
a. where all relevant facts have been fully weighed and considered
b. where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposing
partys case
c. where evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered

Procedure becomes ADVERSARY proceedings when opposition to petition is filed by

LCR or any person having or claiming interest in entries sought to be cancelled and/ or
corrected and opposition is actively prosecuted.

Substantial corrections allowed: citizenship from Chinese to Filipino; status from

legitimate to illegitimate status of mother from married to single

Valencia ruling (en banc) reiterated in

Bautista and Zapanta vs. LCR of Davao

Attempts to revert to Ty Kong Tin Labayo Rowe vs. Rep., Leonor vs. CA and Rep. vs.

Chia Ben Lim vs. Zosa (en banc), Rep. vs.

However, all doubts resolved in Lee vs. CA (367 SCRA 110 [2001]):
1. Substantial corrections Rule 108
2. Clerical or typographical errors (including change of first name) RA 9048
(administrative correction)

Recent Jurisprudence

Appropriate adversary proceeding is one having opposing parties; contested, as

distinguished from an ex parte application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal
warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.
When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed, the appropriate
adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections to the entries of the civil
register is satisfied.
No substantial change or correction in an entry in a civil register can be made without a
judicial order, and, under the law, a change in citizenship status is a substantial change.
(Republic vs. Kho, G.R. No. 170340, June 29, 2007)
Republic Act No. 9048 provides in Section 2 (3) that a summary administrative proceeding
to correct clerical or typographical errors in a birth certificate cannot apply to a change in
nationality. Substantial corrections to the nationality or citizenship of persons recorded in the
civil registry should, therefore, be effected through a petition filed in court under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court. (Kilosbayan Foundation vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 177721, July 3, 2007)
The local civil registrar has primary, not exclusive, jurisdiction over such petitions for
correction of clerical errors and change of first name or nickname, with R.A. No. 9048
prescribing the procedure that the petitioner and local civil registrar should follow. (Re: Final
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the RTC, BR. 67, Paniqui, Tarlac, A.M. No. 06-7-414RTC, October 19, 2007)
Where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his
gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of
majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male
and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is
preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. Sexual development in
cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity
that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed. (Republic vs. Cagandahan, G.R. No.
166676, September 12, 2008)

Rule 109

Sec. 1. Any INTERESTED PERSON may appeal from an order or judgment rendered by
RTC, where such order or judgment


Allows or disallows a WILL

Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased or the DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE of the
estate to which he is entitled
Allows or disallows, in whole and any part, any CLAIM against the estate, or any CLAIM
presented in behalf of the estate IN OFFSET to any claim against it
Settles the ACCOUNT of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian
Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the SETTLEMENT of the estate of the deceased,
or the ADMINISTRATION of a trustee or guardian, a FINAL DETERMINATION in the
lower court of the rights of the party appealing. Exception: no appeal from appointment
of special administrator.
Is the FINAL ORDER or JUDGMENT rendered in the case, and affects the
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS of the person appealing. Unless it be an order granting or
denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration Sec. 1 (a), Rule 41: no appeal may
be taken from an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration.

In certain kinds of special proceedings, such as settlement of estate, appeal may

be taken at various stages of the proceedings.

The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal 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 court
and held to be final. In this multi-appeal mode, the probate court loses jurisdiction only over the
subject matter of the appeal but retains jurisdiction over the special proceeding from which the
appeal was taken for purposes of further remedies the parties may avail of.
Where multi-appeals are allowed, we see no reason why a separate petition for certiorari
cannot be allowed on an interlocutory aspect of the case that is separate and distinct as an
issue from the aspect of the case that has been adjudged with finality by the lower court.
(Briones vs. Henson-Cruz, G.R. No. 159130, August 22, 2008)

Settlement of estate (Rule 73):

RTC (or MTC) of province where deceased last resided/property situated.


Escheat (Rule 91):

RTC of province where deceased last resided/property situated.


(Rule on Guardianship of Minors [A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC])
Family Court of province or city where minor resides/property situated.
Rule 92
RTC of province or city where incompetent resides/property situated.


Adoption (Rule on Adoption [A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC]):

Family Court of province or city where prospective adoptive parents reside.
Rescission where adoptee resides.


Habeas Corpus (Rule 102):

No rule on venue. SC, CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction. However, the writ of
habeas corpus issued by the RTC shall be enforceable only within its judicial region
(Sec. 21, BP 129).
Habeas Corpus for custody of minors:
Family courts have exclusive jurisdiction (Family Courts Act of 1997 [RA 8309].
However, under the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in relation to
Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC), the petition may be filed with SC, CA or
any of its members, and the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.


Change of name (Rule 103):

RTC of province of residence of petitioner.


Absentees (Rule 107):

RTC of place where absentee resided before his disappearance.


Cancellation or correction of entries (Rule 108):

RTC of place where civil registry is located.
Correction of clerical or typographical errors (RA 9048):
Local Civil Registrar of place where record is located.
Exc. if impractical in terms of transportation expenses, time and effort as where
petitioner has transferred to another place Local Civil Registrar of petitioners