Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doctrines/Principles in Cases
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Trustees
i. Advent Capital and Finance Corp. vs. Alcantara
Trustee merely managed in TRUST for the benefit of the trustorbeneficiary.
Trust property is only fictitiously attributed by law to the trustee to
the extent that the rights and powers vested in a NOMINAL OWNER
(trustee) shall be used by him on behalf of the REAL OWNER
(trustor-beneficiary).
ii. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Perez
Trust Receipt document which binds the entrustee to hold the
designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the
entruster and SELL/DISPOSE them with the obligation to turnover
the proceeds.
FUNDAMENTAL IN A TRUST RECEIPT
The entruster becomes the absolute owner and continues to be
one until he/she is paid in full or if sold, proceeds must be
turned-over to him.
Not a trust receipt transaction when both parties enter into an
agreement knowing that the return of goods subject of the trust
receipt is not possible even without any fault on trustees part.
V.
Adoption
i. CANG vs. CA
7 Special Proceedings Reviewer
Notice for petition for adoption is different from notice for change of
name only the prayer for adoption of the minor was stated.
Nothing was mentioned that in addition the correction of his name
in the civil registry was also being sought. The local civil registrar
was thus deprived of notice and, consequently, of the opportunity
to be heard.
Habeas Corpus
a. Ilusorio vs. Bildner
i. Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling
may not be enforced by the extra-ordinary writ of habeas
corpus. . . . No court is empowered as a judicial authority to
compel a husband to live with his wife. Coverture cannot be
enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by
10 Special Proceedings Reviewer
VII.
VIII.
served is relief from illegal restraint. The primary, if not the only
object of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjuciendum, is to
determine the legality of the restraint under which a person is
held.
v. The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the
legality of the detention, and, if the detention is found to be
illegal, to require the release of the detainee. Equally wellsettled however, is that the writ will not issue where the person
in whose behalf the writ is sought is out on bail, or is in the
custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge
with jurisdiction or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of
record.
vi. The writ of habeas corpus secures to a prisoner the right to have
the cause of his detention examined and determined by a court
of justice, and to have ascertained if he is held under lawful
authority. The function of habeas corpus, where the party who
has appealed to its aid is in custody under process, does not
extend beyond an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court by
which it was issued and the validity of the process upon its face.
It is not a writ of error.
vii. Petition for habeas corpus could not be the proper remedy by
which she could assail the adequacy of the adverse finding.
Even granting that there was a failure to adhere to the law or
rule, such failure would not be the equivalent of a violation of
her constitutional rights.
viii. The writ of habeas corpus could not be used as a substitute for
another available remedy.
Change of Name vs. Cancellation or Correction of entries in the Civil Registry
Prerogative Writs
a. Writ of Amparo
i. Tapuz vs. Del Rosario
What the Writ of Amparo is not, is a writ to protect
concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither
is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain
grounds.
ii. Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners Assoc.
Dwelling in Pasig for demolition, which was alleged as a
threat.
Q: Is WOA proper?
A: No. WOA is made available to protect the HIGHEST
POSSIBLE RIGHT of any person - right to life, liberty and
security. And right to dwelling does not fall to any of them.
iii. Castillo vs. Cruz
14 Special Proceedings Reviewer
c. Writ of Kalikasan