You are on page 1of 19

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Doctrines/Principles in Cases
I.

Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person


i. San Luis vs. San Luis
VENUE: Residence differs with domicile (legal residence), for
purposes of fixing the venue of action.
Actual residence
Personal actual or physical habitation of a person
Actual residence or place of abode
Signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay
thereat
LEGAL CAPACITY TO FILE PETITION FOR LETTERS OF
ADMINISTRATION (Rules 78 and 79, ROC)
Interested Person 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
ii. Garcia Quiazon vs. Belen
VENUE: Residence recited in death certificate as the
decedents residence at the time of his death is not binding
on the courts.
NEXT OF KIN those whose relationship with the decedent is
such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributes.
iii. Agtarap vs. Agtarap
JURISDICTION OF PROBATE/INTESTATE COURT to the extent of
determining ownership
GR: Probate/Intestate Court does not have jurisdiction in
determining questions of ownership that arise during the
proceedings
RATIO: Said court merely exercises special and
limited jurisdiction
XPN 1: provisional determination of ownership for the
inclusion in or exclusion from the inventory of a piece of
property without prejudice to the final determination of
ownership in a separate action
Example: determination whether the subject
properties are conjugal is but collateral to the
probate courts jurisdiction to settle the estate of
the deceased.
1 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

XPN 2: If interested parties are ALL HEIRS to the estate


OR parties CONSENTED to the assumption of jurisdiction
by the probate court, AND the rights of 3 rd parties are
not impaired, provided the court is competent to resolve
issues on ownership
Payment of the inheritance tax, per se, does not settle the
estate of a deceased person.
Section 1, Rule 90 RoC mentions when may the estate
be distributed.
When DEBTS, FUNERAL CHARGES, EXPENSES
OF ADMINISTRATION, ALLOWANCE TO THE
WIDOW and INHERITANCE TAX chargeable to
the estate, if any, has been paid; or
When a bond, in a sum fixed by the court, has
been made by the distributees.

iv. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay


ORDER OF PREFERENCE IN THE APPOINTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATOR
GR: Section6, Rule 78, ROC
Surviving Spouse (SS) or Next of Kin (NOK) or
both or other person requested by SS or
NOK to have appointed
One or more Principal Creditors, if #1 is
incompetent, unwilling, or neglects to apply for
administration for 30 days after death
Such other person as the court may select,
if #2 is incompetent and unwilling to serve.
Q: Why is the surviving spouse #1 in the order of
preference?
A: Because he/she has greater interest than the others
surviving
spouse
interest
in
the
conjugal
partnership/community property AND interest as a
compulsory heir.

REASON FOR APPOINTING CO-ADMINISTRATOR


a. To have benefits of their judgment and perhaps at all
times to have different interests represented;
b. Where justice and equity demand that opposing
parties or factions be represented in the
management of the estate of the deceased;
i. If it is unfair to ones proprietary interest to the
deceaseds estate

2 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

c. Where the estate is large or an intricate and perplexing


one to settle;
d. To have all interested persons satisfied and the
representatives to work in harmony for the best interest
of the estate; or
e. To have another competent person associated with him
in the office
INCOMPETENCY/UNSUITABILITY OF ADMINISTRATOR
If person to be appointed as administrator has adverse
interest of some kind or hostility to those
immediately interested in the estate.
If he remised his previous duty as co-administrator
of the estate in the early part of his administration
REMEDIES OF THOSE NOT ADMINISTRATORS
1. Sec. 6, Rule 87, RoC allowance to complain to
court the CONCEALMENT, EMBEZZLEMENT or
CONVEYANCE of any asset of the decedent, or of
evidence of decedents title or interest therein;
2. Sec. 10, Rule 85, RoC Notice for examination and
allowance of Administrators account to interested
persons;
3. Sec. 7(b), Rule 89, RoC Notice to interested
persons regarding a Petition seeking the disposition
or encumbrance of the properties of the estate;
4. Sec. 1, Rule 90, RoC allowing interested persons
to petition for an order to distribute the residue of
the estate
5. Sec. 2, Rule 82, RoC Court may remove or accept
the resignation of an administrator or executor if
the latter neglects to perform his duties.

v. Lee vs. RTC of Q.C.


SALE
OF
PROPERTIES
SUBJECT
OF
SETTLEMENT
OF
TESTATE/INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS
Said properties are custodia legis.
GR: Cannot be alienated until after final adjudication
that all debts have been paid or devisees or legatees shall
have been given their shares.
An heir may only sell his UNDIVIDED SHARE in the
estate
XPN: If probate/intestate court approved such disposition.
EFFECT IF DISPOSED WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL:
Disposition/Sale/Encumbrance/Alienation is void and
passes NOT TITLE to the purchaser.
3 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

XPN #1 to the Limited jurisdiction of probate/intestate court in


determination of ownership. Determination of ownership, in this
case, is provisional in nature to determine whether the property
is included or excluded in the inventory of the estate.

vi. Estate of Hilario Ruiz vs. CA


Widow and children of a deceased person are entitled to
allowance/provisional support from the funds of the decedents
estate. Grandchildren are excluded.
When may residue be distributed?
Upon payment of debts, funeral charges, expenses of
administration, the allowance of the widow and inheritance
tax; or
Upon payment of a bond by the distributees or any of them
Right of an executor or administrator to the possession and
management of the properties of the estate NOT ABSOLUTE.
Only up to the extent to the necessity of paying the debts and
expenses of administration.
vii. Union Bank vs. Santibaez
XPN #1 to the Limited jurisdiction of probate/intestate court in
determination of ownership.
Ownership can be determined by the probate/intestate court
only if they should or should not be included in the inventory
or list of properties to be administered.
GR: No valid partition among the heirs UNTIL will has been
probated, if property to be partitioned is embraced in the will.
RATIO: because WILL must first be authenticated if testator
is capacitated, in compliance with the requirements or
solemnities prescribed by law
XPN: If court approved partition of property in custodia legis.
CLAIMS that may be filed against the estate of the deceased
1. Money claims arising from contracts, express or implied,
absolute or contingent;
2. Claims for funeral expenses;
3. Claims for expenses for the last sickness of the decedent; and
4. Judgment for money against decedent
viii. Heirs of Maglasang vs. MBC
Remedies of Creditor-Mortgagee for the satisfaction of his
indebtedness (when to know if said remedy is chosen)
1. Waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the estate
of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim (upon the filing of suit
for collection);
4 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

2. Foreclose the mortgage JUDICIALLY and prove the deficiency


as an ordinary claim (upon the filing of the complaint in an
action for foreclosure of mortgage); or
3. Rely on the mortgage EXCLUSIVELY or other security and
foreclose the same before it is barred by prescription without
right to file a claim for any deficiency (upon filing of the
petition with the Office of the Sheriff of the province where
sale is to be made, in accordance with provisions of ACT No.
3135
Such remedies are distinct, independent and mutually exclusive
from each other; deemed alternative and not cumulative;
ELECTION OF ONE EFFECTIVELY BARS THE EXERCISE OF
OTHERS.
VENUE OF EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE:
In the capital of the province IF property is within the
territorial jurisdiction of the province concerned; OR
In the city if the property is within the territorial jurisdiction
of the city concerned
Property is located in Ormoc City. The auction sale in
Ormoc city is in sufficient compliance with the abovementioned requirements.

ix. Pilapil vs. Heirs of Maximino Briones


PRESCRIPTION OF THE RIGHT TO RECOVER/RECONVEY BASED ON
IMPLIED TRUST (obligation created by law)
Kinds of Implied trust
Resulting Trust
Trust raised by implication of law and presumed
always to have been contemplated by the parties
found not in the deed or instrument itself but in the
nature of their transaction.
Imprescriptible as long as the trustee has not
repudiated the trust. Otherwise, prescriptible for
10 years from registration and/or issuance of the
title to the property
Constructive Trust
Trust created by equity in order to satisfy the
demands of justice.
If a person obtains legal title to property by fraud or
concealment, courts of equity will impress upon the
title a so-called constructive trust in favor of the
defrauded party.

5 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

Prescriptible for 10 years from registration and/or


issuance of the title to the property

x. Sabidong vs. Solas


PROHIBITION OF COURT OFFICERS FROM ACQUIRING PROPERTY
INVOLVED in LITIGATION
Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and
inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected
with the administration of justice, the property and rights
in litigation or levied upon an execution before the
court within whose jurisdiction or territory they
exercise their respective functions; this prohibition
includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply
to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may
be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by
virtue of their profession.
The property must be the subject of litigation of the court
WHERE the officer exercises his function.

II.

III.

xi. Aranas vs. Mercado


Same with Agtarap vs Agtarap on the limited jurisdiction of
probate/testate court in determination of ownership of the
properties.
.
Escheat
i. Alvarico vs. Sola
Reversion of lands granted by the government to a private
individual may only be done by the government itself.
Guardianship and Custody of Children
i. Goyena vs. Gustilo
Incompetent not of unsound mind but because of old age,
disease, weak mind and other similar causes, cannot, without
outside aid, take care of himself and manage his property,
becoming an easy prey for deceit and exploitation.
ii. Caiza vs. CA
GR: Guardian cannot substitute for the deceased ward as a party in
a suit.
XPN: if the guardian is also an heir of the deceased ward.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for
the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor
or administrator and the court may appoint guardian ad litem
for the minor heirs.
6 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

iii. Neri vs. Heirs of Uy


Parents, as natural guardians, have the power of administration
only.
Powers to sell or encumber the properties of the ward requires (1)
appointment as judicial guardians and (2) court approval of its sale
or encumbrance.
iv. Oropesa vs. Oropesa
Proving a ward incompetent must be anchored on a CLEAR,
POSITIVE and DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE
If SANITY is an issue, expert opinion is not necessary. (1)
OBSERVATIONS of the trial court judge and (2) EVIDENCE
establishing state of mental sanity will suffice.
v. Abad vs. Biazon
Death of either guardian or ward terminates the relationship.
Juridical tie between guardian and ward has already dissolved.

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

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

The required written consent of both living parents except if they


abandon the children
ABANDONMENT OF CHILD Conduct of a parent who evinces a
settled purpose to forego ALL PARENTAL DUTIES and
RELINQUISH all parental claims to the child.
Abandonment does not only pertain to abandoning a parents
financial obligation but also deals with the remiss in his natural
and legal obligations of love, care and support for his children.

ii. Vda. De Jacob vs. CA


Issue arose when Tomasa Vda. De Jacob questioned the adoption of
Pedro Pilapil by the deceased during the settlement proceeding
when the later intervened claiming his share of the deceaseds
estate as Alfredo's adopted son and as his sole surviving heir.
GR: Adoption cannot be made subject to a collateral attack.
XPN:
The burden of proof in establishing adoption is upon the person
claiming such relationship.
iii. Republic vs. Hernandez
As a matter of right and obligation, the adoptee may bear the
surname of the adopter, upon issuance of the decree of
adoption. It is the change of the adoptee's surname to follow that of
the adopter which is the natural and necessary consequence of a
grant of adoption and must specifically be contained in the order of
the court, in fact, even if not prayed for by petitioner.

The given or proper name, also known as the first or Christian


name, of the adoptee must remain as it was originally
registered in the civil register. The creation of an adoptive
relationship does not confer upon the adopter a license to change
the adoptee's registered Christian or first name. The automatic
change thereof, premised solely upon the adoption thus granted, is
beyond the purview of a decree of adoption. Neither is it a mere
incident in nor an adjunct of an adoption proceeding, such that a
prayer therefore furtively inserted in a petition for adoption, as in
this case, cannot properly be granted.

iv. Republic vs. CA


The change of Name in Rule 108, 2 is inserted in RoC to cover
those harmless and innocuous changes, such as correction of a
name that is clearly misspelled. Hence, the local civil registry must
be made a party to any change of name.
8 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

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.

v. Reyes vs. Mauricio


Settled law: filiation cannot be collaterally attacked.
REASON: The legitimacy of the child cannot be contested by
way of defense or as a collateral issue in another action for a
different purpose; must be made by proper complaint before
the competent court; any contest made in any other way is
void. This principle applies under our Family Code. Articles 170
and 171 of the code confirm this view, because they refer to
the action to impugn the legitimacy. This action can be brought
only by the husband or his heirs and within the periods fixed in
the present articles. The Court likewise stated that legitimacy
and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action
seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral
attack.
The same rule is applied to adoption such that it cannot also be
made subject to a collateral attack. Furthermore, the Court declared
that the legality of the adoption by the testatrix can be
assailed only in a separate action brought for that purpose and
cannot be subject to collateral attack.
vi. In the Matter of Stephanie Nathy Astorga-Garcia
Law Is Silent As To The Use Of Middle Name
The members of the Civil Code and Family Law Committees that
drafted the Family Code recognized the Filipino custom of
adding the surname of the childs mother as his middle
name, approving the suggestion that the initial or surname of the
mother should immediately precede the surname of the father.
REASON: continued use of the mothers surname as the adopted
childs middle name will maintain his/her maternal lineage. It is to
be noted that Article 189(3) of the Family Code and Section 18[24],
Article V of RA 8552 (law on adoption) provide that the adoptee
remains an intestate heir of his/her biological parent. Hence, the
adopted child can well assert or claim his/her hereditary rights from
his/her natural mother in the future.
vii. Petition for Adoption of Michelle and Michael Lim
9 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

GR: Husband and Wife is mandatory to file the adoption (insures


harmony between the spouses)

viii. Nery vs. Sampana


Certification requirement may be waived when:
(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within
the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino
spouse; or
(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt
jointly with his spouse a relative within the fourth (4th)degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse
ix. Castro vs. Gregorio
GR: Husband and Wife is mandatory to file the adoption
XPN #2: if one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child and
the other spouse signified written consent thereto
In this case, consent of the other spouse was not obtained.
x. Bartolome vs. SSS
The rule limiting death benefits claims to the legitimate parents is
contrary to law.
Q: May biological mother be a beneficiary of the adopted child?
A: YES. The term "parents" in the phrase "dependent parents" in
Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code is used and ought to be taken in its
general sense and cannot be unduly limited to "legitimate parents"
as what the ECC did. The phrase "dependent parents" should,
therefore, include all parents, whether legitimate or illegitimate and
whether by nature or by adoption. When the law does not
distinguish, one should not distinguish. Plainly, "dependent parents"
are parents, whether legitimate or illegitimate, biological or by
adoption, who are in need of support or assistance.
VI.

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

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

sheriffs or by any other mesne process. That is a matter beyond


judicial authority and is best left to the man and woman's free
choice.
ii. A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention, or by which the rightful custody of a
person is withheld from the one entitled thereto.
iii. "Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining
another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner
at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his
capture and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever
the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that
behalf." It is a high prerogative, common-law writ, of ancient
origin, the great object of which is the liberation of those who
may be imprisoned without sufficient cause. It is issued when
one is deprived of liberty or is wrongfully prevented from
exercising legal custody over another person.
iv. A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention, or by which the rightful custody of a
person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. It is available
where a person continues to be unlawfully denied of one or more
of his constitutional freedoms, where there is denial of due
process, where the restraints are not merely involuntary but are
unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid
has later become arbitrary. It is devised as a speedy and
effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, as
the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.
v. The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is
to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint, and to relieve
a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.
vi. To justify the grant of the petition, the restraint of liberty must
be an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action.
The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective, not
merely nominal or moral.
b. Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan
i. As a general rule, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where
the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty in custody of an
officer under a process issued by the court which jurisdiction to
do so. In exceptional circumstances, habeas corpus may be
granted by the courts even when the person concerned is
detained pursuant to a valid arrest or his voluntary surrender,
for this writ of liberty is recognized as "the fundamental
instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary
and lawless state action" due to "its ability to cut through
11 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

barriers of form and procedural mazes." Thus, in previous cases,


we issued the writ where the deprivation of liberty, while initially
valid under the law, had later become invalid, and even though
the persons praying for its issuance were not completely
deprived of their liberty.
ii. A petition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for
asserting one's right to bail. It cannot be availed of where
accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on the
discretion of the court and the latter has not abused such
discretion in refusing to grant bail, or has not even exercised
said discretion. The proper recourse is to file an application for
bail with the court where the criminal case is pending and to
allow hearings thereon to proceed.
c. Lacson vs. Perez
i. As a rule, a Party must show personal stake in the outcome of
the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a
favorable decision to warrant invocation of court Jurisdiction; not
present in case at bar.
d. Sangca vs. City Prosecutor of Cebu
i. A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention in which any person is deprived of his
liberty, or in which the rightful custody of any person is withheld
from the person entitled to it. Its essential object and purpose is
to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve a
person from it if such restraint is illegal. The singular function of
a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic
freedom of physical liberty.
e. Mangila vs. Pangilinan
i. A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a special
proceeding governed by Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as
amended. In Ex Parte Billings, it was held that habeas corpus is
that of a civil proceeding in character. It seeks the enforcement
of civil rights. Resorting to the writ is not to inquire into the
criminal act of which the complaint is made, but into the right of
liberty, notwithstanding the act and the immediate purpose to
be served is relief from illegal restraint. The rule applies even
when instituted to arrest a criminal prosecution and secure
freedom. When a prisoner petitions for a writ of habeas corpus,
he thereby commences a suit and prosecutes a case in that
court.

12 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

ii. Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor


intended as substitute for the trial court's function. It cannot
take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of error. The writ
cannot be used to investigate and consider questions of error
that might be raised relating to procedure or on the merits. The
inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is addressed to the
question of whether the proceedings and the assailed order are,
for any reason, null and void. The writ is not ordinarily granted
where the law provides for other remedies in the regular course,
and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Moreover,
habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of trial. The
orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies
exhausted before resorting to the writ where exceptional
circumstances are extant. In another case, it was held that
habeas corpus cannot be issued as a writ of error or as a means
of reviewing errors of law and irregularities not involving the
questions of jurisdiction occurring during the course of the trial,
subject to the caveat that constitutional safeguards of human
life and liberty must be preserved, and not destroyed. It has also
been held that where restraint is under legal process, mere
errors and irregularities, which do not render the proceedings
void, are not grounds for relief by habeas corpus because in
such cases, the restraint is not illegal.
iii. Habeas corpus is a summary remedy. It is analogous to a
proceeding in rem when instituted for the sole purpose of having
the person of restraint presented before the judge in order that
the cause of his detention may be inquired into and his
statements final. The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon
the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds
him in what is alleged to be the unlawful authority. Hence, the
only parties before the court are the petitioner (prisoner) and
the person holding the petitioner in custody, and the only
question to be resolved is whether the custodian has authority
to deprive the petitioner of his liberty. The writ may be denied if
the petitioner fails to show facts that he is entitled thereto ex
merito justicias.
iv. A writ of habeas corpus, which is regarded as a "palladium of
liberty," is a prerogative writ which does not issue as a matter of
right but in the sound discretion of the court or judge. It is,
however, a writ of right on proper formalities being made by
proof. Resort to the writ is not to inquire into the criminal act of
which a complaint is made but unto the right of liberty,
notwithstanding the act and the immediate purpose to be
13 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

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

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

The coverage of the Writ of Amparo is limited to the


protection of rights to life, liberty and security. And the
writs cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful
acts or omissions.
It does not protect concerns that are purely property or
commercial.
iv. Razon vs. Tagitis
When military intelligence pinpointed a government
agency to be involved in the abduction, it is qualified as
enforced disappearance (according to UN Declaration on
the
Protection
of
all
Persons
from
Enforced
Disappearances.
Threatened or actual violation of right to life, liberty and
security is INDISPENSABLE in an Amparo petition.
Quantum of Evidence: Substantial Evidence such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
The parties shall establish their claims by substantial
evidence. HOW:
private individual - must prove that ordinary
diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations was observed in the performance of
duty.
public official or employee - must prove that
extraordinary diligence as required by applicable
laws, rules and regulations was observed in the
performance of duty. He cannot invoke the
presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed or evade responsibility or liability.
Writ of Amparo does not determine guilt or pinpoint
criminal culpability for the disappearance. It only imposes
appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.
Hence, it determines responsibility, or at least
accountability for the enforced disappearance
v. Roxas vs. GMA
The doctrine of command responsibility is a rule of
substantive law that establishes liability and, by this
account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a
party-respondent in an Amparo petition. Writ of Amparo,
on the other hand, does not fix liability for such
disappearance, killing or threats
However, military or police commanders may still be
impleaded, not under the doctrine of command
15 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

responsibility, but on the ground of their responsibility, or


at least accountability.
An order directing to return the personal belongings of the
petitioner is already equivalent to a conclusive
pronouncement of liability. Since matters of liability are
not determinable in a mere summary amparo proceeding
and the fact that a person's right to be restituted of his
property is already subsumed under the general rubric of
property rights which are no longer protected by the
writ of amparo, it was denied by the Supreme Court.
Inspection order - an interim relief designed to give
support or strengthen the claim of a petitioner in an
amparo petition, in order to aid the court before making a
decision.
Basic requirement before granting the said order:
the place to be inspected is reasonably
determinable from the allegations of the party
seeking the order.
An inspection order cannot issue on the basis of
allegations that are, in themselves, unreliable and
doubtful.
vi. Burgos vs. Esperon
b. Writ of Habeas Data
i. Tapuz vs. Del Rosario
Section 6(b) of Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data:
(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;
There should be a concrete allegations of
unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to
privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security
Section 6(c) of Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data:
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the
petitioner to secure the data or information,
The petition must alleged any need for information
under the control of police authorities.
The necessity or justification for the issuance of the
writ, based on the insufficiency of previous efforts
made to secure information, has not must also
been shown.
The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to
protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when

16 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor


are vague or doubtful.
ii. Castillo vs. Cruz
[R]espondents also seek the issuance of a writ of habeas
data when it is not even alleged that petitioners are
gathering, collecting or storing data or information
regarding
their
person,
family,
home
and
correspondence.
The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to
protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when
the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor
are vague or doubtful.
iii. Roxas vs. GMA
The writ of habeas data was conceptualized as a judicial
remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the
right to informational privacy of individuals.
It operates to protect a person's right to control
information regarding himself, particularly in the
instances where such information is being collected
through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful
ends.
Indispensable requirement: The showing, at least by
substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation
of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the
victim.
No evidence on record even shows that any of the public
respondents had access to such video or photograph.
iv. MERALCO vs. Lim
Generally, the habeas data rule is designed to protect, by
means of judicial complaint, the image, privacy, honor,
information, and freedom of information of an individual.
It is meant to provide a forum to enforce one's right to the
truth and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the
constitutional guarantees of a person's right to life, liberty
and security against abuse in this age of information
technology.
It bears reiteration thathabeas data was conceived as a
response, given the lack of effective and available
remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the number
of killings and enforced disappearances.
Intent: To address violations of or threats to the rights to
life, liberty or security as a remedy independently from
those provided under prevailing Rules.
17 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to


protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when
the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor
are vague or doubtful.
Employment is a property right. Jurisdiction over such
concerns is inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC and
the Labor Arbiters.
There is no showing from the facts presented that
petitioners committed any unjustifiable or unlawful
violation of respondent's right to privacy vis-a-vis the right
to life, liberty or security. Arguments are only speculative
or suspicious in nature.
v. Lee vs. Ilagan
It was conceptualized as a judicial remedy enforcing the
right to privacy, most especially the right to informational
privacy of individuals, which is defined as "the right to
control
the
collection,
maintenance,
use,
and
dissemination of data about oneself."
Thus, in order to support a petition for the issuance of
such writ, Section 6 of the Habeas Data Rule essentially
requires that the petition sufficiently alleges, among
others:
"[t]he manner the right to privacy is violated or
threatened and how it affects the right to life,
liberty or security of the aggrieved party."
the petition must adequately show that there
exists a nexus between the right to privacy
on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty
or security on the other.
allegations must be supported by substantial
evidence showing an actual or threatened
violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty
or security of the victim.
The writ of habeas data will not issue to protect purely
property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds
invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague and
doubtful.
In this case:
Respondent was not able to sufficiently allege that
his right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or
would
be
violated
through
the
supposed
reproduction and threatened dissemination of the
subject sex video.
18 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

Respondent failed to explain the connection


between the privacy interest and any violation of
his right to life, liberty or security
Courts cannot speculate or contrive versions of possible
transgressions.
Grounds for dismissing Habeas Data Petition
Failure to allege AND prove the nexus between
one's privacy right to the cogent rights to life,
liberty or security (crucial in habeas data cases);
Inadequacy of the evidence presented (failed to
meet the substantial evidence requirement)
Case at bar: only evidence submitted by
respondent is his self-serving testimony

c. Writ of Kalikasan

19 Special Proceedings Reviewer

Maria Pacita M. Marias


Arellano University School of Law

You might also like