Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Course Syllabus
Part 1 (Special Proceedings)
A. Settlement of Estate
1. Venue vs. Jurisdiction (Rule 73)
2. Kinds of Settlement
a. Extrajudicial
(1) By Agreement
(2) By Self-Adjudication
b. Judicial
(1) Summary (Rule 74)
(2) By Petition (Rule 75 to 90)
a. Intestate
b. Testate
(3) By Partition (Rule 69)
3. The Administrator or Executor
a. Special vs. Regular (Rule 80)
b. Bonds (Rule 81)
c. Powers and Duties (Rule 84)
d. Accountability (Rule 85)
4. Claims against the Estate
5. Actions by and against Executor and Administrator (Rule 87)
6. Distribution and Partition (Rule 90)
Cases:
1. Silverio Sr. v. Silver Jr. Aug. 13, 2014
2. San Luis v. San Luis 514 SCRA February 2007
3. Agtarap v. Agtarap 651 SCRA June 2011
4. Suntay III v. Cojuangco-Suntay 683 SCRA October 2012
5. Lee v. RTC of QC 423 SCRA February 2004
6. Heirs of Hilario Ruiz v. Edmond Ruiz 252 SCRA January 1996
7. Unionbank v. Santibanez 452 SCRA February 2005
8. Garcia-Quiazon v. Belen 702 SCRA July 31, 2013
9. Pilapil v. Heirs of Briones 514 SCRA February 2007
10. Sabidong v. Solas 699 SCRA June 2013
11. Aranas v. Mercado 713 SCRA
12. Butiong v. Plazo 765 SCRA 227
Cases:
1. Alvarico v. Sola 382 SCRA
2. Maltos v. Heirs of Eusebio Borromeo 770 SCRA 397
C. Guardians and Guardianship (Rule 92 to 97) as amended by A.M. No. 3-02-05-SC, May 1, 2003
1. Venue v. Jurisdiction (Sec. 92)
2. Appointment: kinds and qualifications (Sec. 93)
3. Requirement (Sec. 94)
4. Power and Duties (Sec. 96)
5. Termination (Sec. 97)
Cases:
1. Goyena v. Ledesma Gustilo, January 13, 2003
2. Caniza v. CA February 24, 2017
3. Neri v. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy 683 SCRA
4. Oropesa v. Oropesa 671 SCRA (4/20/12)
5. Abad v. Biazon 687 SCRA (12/2012)
Case:
Landbank of the Phil. V. Perez 672 SCRA
CASES:
1. Castro vs. Gregorio, 738 SCRA (10/15/14)
a. Husband and wife, estranged since gay tendencies, his lover larry’s children he
wanted to adopt saying that it’s his illegitimate children
b. Issue on WON consent of the children and his current spouse is required?
c. Held: you need the consent of the adopter’s children if they are 10 years old or
older, what is required is the summons to be served to ensure that their substantive
rights are not violated.
d. needs the consent of the spouse in order to adopt. And since they’re still married,
the lack of consent from Rosario was fatal to the adoption petition wherein the
court never acquired jurisdiction over the case.
2. Cang vs. CA – 296 SCRA 128 written consent of the parent who has allegedly abandoned
them
a. A case for legal separation due to extramatiral affairs was approved and a decree of
divorce has been acquired in the states; the wife was given custody to the 3 children
and now the brother and sister in law of ana filed a petition for adoption and was
granted; he contested such adoption decree
b. Issue on whether or not his consent was required
c. Held: yes, the consent of the parent who has allegedly abandoned them is required
when the person allegedly abandoning their children has not manifested any signs
of abandonment of all of his parental duties of support, love and care of his
children. In fact, he was shown to cater to their whims and send them packages,
letters and had phone calls with them.
2. Serapio vs Sandiganbayan- 396 SCRA 443 Habeas corpus not the right remedy to assert
one’s right to bail
a. Petitioner was the board of trustees for an ERAP foundation who deposited
200m in their foundation. He was roped into the criminal cases of Estrada. The
ombudsman filed with the sandiganbayan several information and no bail was
granted for the provisional release of herein petitioner. He filed with the SC for
a P4HC beause he was allegedly denied due process by want of preliminary
investigation.
b. WON the case would prosper
c. Held: no, since the right to a PI is not a constitutional right but a right in statute,
he was afforded the right to answer the charges against him in the PI and
jurisprudence dictates that the court will not interfere with the discretion of the
ombudsman in conducting the PI.
d. Also, the denial of the P4HC does not deny him his right to due process because
there is no basis for the issuance of the writ in favor of the petitioner because
he voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities, habeas corpus will not lie
when there is no deprivation of liberty. Aaaand Habeas corpus is not the right
remedy in asserting one’s right to bail
3. Lacson vs Perez, 357 SCRA 756 the arrests remain speculative to this day since the state
of rebellion has already been lifted.
a. Ping is questioning the proclamation of suspension of the WoHC because of the
fact that there is rebellion and insurrection. He is stating that there will be a lot
of warrantless arrests hence he filed for a petition for habeas corpus
b. Issue on the habeas corpus
c. Held: THE RELIEF IS PREMATURE, there is no warrantless until now to speak of,
and second, it is already moot and academic since the proclamation has been
lifted.
4. Sangca vs City Prosecutor of Cebu, 524 SCRA 610 moot and academic since lovely adam
was already released.
a. Lovely Adam was arrested in a buy bust operation and hence violating certain
provisions of RA 9165. A case was filed against her but the prosecutors found
that there was no probable cause or enough evidence to try her. Anisah Impal
Sangca then filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus and the release of
lovely impal adam.
b. Issue on the WOHC case being moot and academic
c. A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement of 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
HC is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty. In this case
however, the petitioner has already been released! Hence, moot and academic.
5. Mangila vs. Pangilinan, 701 SCRA 355 when petitioner’s restraint and arrest was lawful,
then the petition for the writ cannot be attained.
a. He was arrested for multiple counts of Syndicated Estafa, he promised
employment in Toronto and didn’t deliver after receiving payments. A warrant
of arrest was issued and hence she was arrested. A petition for the WoHC was
filed stating that she was not given the chance to quash the warrant of arrest
and hence, her due process was violated.
b. Issue on the validity of the writ.
c. Held: Habeas corpus is the speedy remedy to relieve persons who are unlawfully
restrained. In the case at bar, the restraint is not unlawful, in fact, she was
arrested and detained by virtue of a valid warrant of arrest.
6. Tujan-Militante vs Cada Deapera, July 28 2014 habeas corpus involving the custody of
minors, jurisdiction is vested with the family courts. No need for summons in habeas
corpus cases.
a.
7. Datukan Malalang Salibo vs. the Warden 755 SCRA 296 Habeas corpus is the correct
remedy in cases of deprivation of liberty due to mistaken identity.
a. Mistake in person when Datukan Malalang was arrested for participation in the
maguindanao massacre but there was a mistake in person when they thought
that he was Butukan S Malang. So he filed a case for a petition for the WoHC,
which was granted and then reversed by the CA because they said that it was
not the proper remedy because all other remedies have not yet been exhausted
(ie. Quashal of the information or the warrant of arrest).
b. Issue on the validity of WoHC as a remedy to mistake in identity.
c. The correct remedy was WoHC, and it should be issued because it is the correct
remedy in cases of deprivation of liberty due to mistaken identity, not only that,
but the police officers herein deprived him of liberty without due process of law
because the arrest was not by virtue of any warrant because he could not have
been Butukan as stated in the evidence presented.
I. Prerogative Writs
1. Writ of Amparo
2. Writ of Habeas Data
3. Rules on Environmental Cases
a. Writ of Kalikasan
b. Writ of Continuing Mandamus
Cases:
1. Tapuz vs. Del Rosario, 554 SCRA
2. Caram vs Segui, August 5 2014
3. Vivares et Al. vs. St. Theres College et Al. Sept 29 2014
4. Razon vs. Tagitis, 606 SCRA
5. Roxas vs GMA, 630 SCRA
6. Burgos vs. Esperon, 715 SCRA, February 2014
7. Dolot vs. Paje, 703 SCRA (continuing Mandamus).
8. Meralco vs. Lim, 632 SCRA (10/5/2010)
9. Lee vs. Ilagan, 738 SCRA 59
10. Arigo vs. Swift, 735 SCRA 102
2015 Supreme Court Decisions:
11. Paje vs. Casino, 749 SCRA 39
12. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs. Angelo Reyes
et Al., 756 SCRA 513, April 21 2015
13. West Tower Condominium vs. Phil. Ind. Corp., 758 SCRA 289
(on precautionary principle)