2014-2017 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – SUGGESTED BAR ANSWERS

2014

VIII.

Johnny, a naturalized citizen of the United States of America (USA) but formerly a
Filipino citizen, executed a notarial will in accordance with the laws of the State of
California, USA. Johnny, at the time of his death, was survived by his niece Anastacia, an
American citizen residing at the condominium unit of Johnny located at Fort Bonifacio,
Taguig City; a younger brother, Bartolome, who manages Johnny’s fish pond in Lingayen,
Pangasinan; and a younger sister, Christina, who manages Johnny’s rental
condominium units in Makati City. Johnny’s entire estate which he inherited from his
parents is valued at P200 million. Johnny appointed Anastacia as executrix of his will. (4%)
(A) Can Johnny’s notarial will be probated before the proper court in the
Philippines?
(B) Is Anastacia qualified to be the executrix of Johnny’s notarial will?

ANSWERS:
(A)
Yes, the formal validity of a will is governed also by the national law of the decedent.
(Article 817, Civil Code).
A will proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such
country, may be allowed, filed, and recorded by the proper Regional Trial Court in the
Philippines. (S1 R77).

(B)
Yes, assuming that Anastacia is of legal age, she is qualified to be an executor
although an alien because she is a resident of the Philippines. (S1 R78).

XXVIII.

A was adopted by B and C when A was only a toddler. Later on in life, A filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court, as he wanted to reassume the surname of his natural parents because the surname
of his adoptive parents sounded offensive and was seriously affecting his business and
social life.
The adoptive parents gave their consent to the petition for change of name.
May A file a petition for change of name? If the RTC grants the petition for change of name,
what, if any, will be the effect on the respective relations of A with his adoptive parents and
with his natural parents? Discuss. (4%)

ANSWER:

Yes, A may file a petition for change of name. Changing name on the ground that it is
offensive and seriously affects the petitioner’s business and social life is a valid ground
especially where the adoptive parents had given their consent.

The grant of the petition will not change A’s relations with his adoptive and natural
parents. The Supreme Court has held that change of name under Rule 103 affects only the
name and not the status of the petitioner. (Republic v. CA, 21 May 1992).
XVIII. The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by Masigasig, formed a nongovernmental
organization - Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to
protest the mining operations of Oro Negro Mining in the mountain. ALMA
members picketed daily at the entrance of the mining site blocking the ingress and
egress of trucks and equipment of Oro Negro, hampering its operations. Masigasig
had an altercation with Mapusok arising from the complaint of the mining engineer
of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was destroyed by ALMA members.
Mapusok is the leader of the Association of Peace Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a civilian
volunteer organization serving as auxiliary force of the local police to
maintain peace and order in the area. Subsequently, Masigasig disappeared.
Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig, and the members of ALMA searched for
Masigasig, but all their efforts proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of ALMA,
learned from Maingay, a member of APKA, during their binge drinking that
Masigasig was abducted by other members of APKA, on order of Mapusok.
Mayumi and ALMA sought the assistance of the local police to search for
Masigasig, but they refused to extend their cooperation.
Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a petition for the issuance of the
writ of amparo against Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the
issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals against Mapusok and
APKA. Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the RTC,
raised among their defenses that they are not agents of the State; hence, cannot be
impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition.
a.) Is their defense tenable? (3%)
Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the Court of
Appeals, raised as their defense that the petition should be dismissed on the ground
that ALMA cannot file the petition because of the earlier petition filed by Mayumi
with the RTC.
b.) Are respondents correct in raising their defense? (3%)
c.) Mayumi later filed separate criminal and civil actions against Mapusok.
How will the cases affect the amparo petition she earlier filed? (1 %)
ANSWERS:

a) No, the defense of Mapusok and APKA that they are not agents of the State and
hence cannot be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition is not tenable.
The writ of amparo is available in cases where the enforced or involuntary
disappearance of a persons is with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the
State. (See Sec. 3[g] of R.A. No. 9851 and Navia v. Pardico, 19 June 2012, e.b.).
Here Mapusok and APKA may be considered as acting with the support or at least the
acquiescence of the State since APKA serves as an auxiliary force of the police and the
police refused to assist in the search for Masigasig.
b) Yes respondents are correct in raising their defense.
Under Section 2(c) of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the filing of a petition by an
authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others,
observing the order in Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
Here the petition for writ of amparo had earlier been filed by the spouse of the
aggrieved party Masigasig. Thus it suspends the right of all others, including ALMA, to file
the petition.
c) The amparo petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action. (Section 23,
Rule on the Writ of Amparo).