Academicus Review Center Inc.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
DEAN GEMY LITO L. FESTIN
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE

GILDA JARDELEZA, (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY:

ERNESTO ARDELEZA, JR., TEODORO MARIA JARDELEZA, ROLANDO L.
JARDELEZA, MA GLENDA JARDELEZA-UY, and MELECIO GIL
JARDELEZA, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES MELECIO and ELIZABETH JARDELEZA, JMB TRADERS, INC., and
TEODORO JARDELEZA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 167975

June 17, 2015
DOCTRINE:
The jurisdiction of the RT C as a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the
settlement of the estate and probate of a will of a deceased person, and does not extend t the
determination of a question of ownership that arises during the proceedings. This is true whether
or not the property is alleged to belong to the estate, unless the claimants to the property are all
heirs of the deceased and they agree to submit the question for determination by the probate or
administration court and the interests of third parties are not prejudiced, or unless the purpose is
to determine whether or not certain properties should be included in the inventory, in which case
the probate or administration court may decide prima facie the ownership of the property, but
such de termination is not final and is without prejudice to the right of interested parties to
ventilate the question of ownership in a proper action.

SPOUSES MARIA BUTIONG and VILLAFRlA, DR. RUEL B. SPOUSES MARIA

FRANCISCO substituted by VILLAFRIA, Petitioners,
vs.
MA. GRACIA RINOZA PLAZO and MA. FE RINOZA ALARAS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 187524

August 5, 2015
DOCTRINE:
While Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court allows the heirs to divide the estate
among themselves as they may see fit, or to resort to an ordinary action for partition, the said
provision does not compel them to do so if they have good reasons to take a different course of
action. It should be noted that recourse to an administration proceeding even if the estate has no
debts is sanctioned only if the heirs have good reasons for not resorting to an action for
partition. Where partition is possible, either in or out of court, the estate should not be burdened
with an administration proceeding without good and compelling reasons.

NILO V. CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner,

vs.
VICTORIA BENITEZ-LIRIO, FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 162692

August 26, 2015
DOCTRINE:
If an intervention makes a third party a litigant in the main proceedings, his pleading-in-
intervention should form part of the main case. Accordingly, when the petitioner intervened in
Special Proceedings No. SP-797, his complaint-in-intervention, once admitted by the RTC,
became part of the main case, rendering any final disposition thereof subject to the rules
specifically applicable to special proceedings, including Rule 109 of the Rules of Court, which
deals with appeals in special proceedings.
 IRIS MORALES, Petitioners,
vs.
ANA MARIA OLONDRIZ, ALFONSO JUAN OLONDRIZ, JR., ALEJANDRO
MORENO OLONDRIZ, ISABEL ROSA OLONDRIZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER
MARIA OLONDRIZ, Respondent.

G.R. No. 198994

February 03, 2016
DOCTRINE:
The general rule is that in probate proceedings, the scope of the court's inquiry is limited to
questions on the extrinsic validity of the will; the probate court will only determine the will's
formal validity and due execution. However, this rule is not inflexible and absolute. It is not
beyond the probate court's jurisdiction to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will when so
warranted by exceptional circumstances.

The disputed order is merely interlocutory and can never become final and executory in the same
manner that a final judgment does. An interlocutory order does not result in res judicata. It
remains under the control of the court and can be modified or rescinded at any time before final
judgment.

JO-ANN DIAZ-SALGADO AND HUSBAND DR. GERARD C. SALGADO, Petitioners,

vs.
LUIS G. ANSON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 204494

July 27, 2016

DOCTRINE:
It is stated under Article 1079 of the Civil Code that "partition, in general, is the separation,
division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. The
thing itself may be divided, or its value." As to how partition may be validly done, Article 496 of
the Civil Code is precise that "partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by
judicial proceedings x x x." The law does not impose a judicial approval for the agreement to be
valid. Hence, even without the same, the partition was validly done by Luis and Severina through
the execution of the Partition Agreement.

SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE AND ESCHEAT

SPOUSES MARIA BUTIONG and VILLAFRlA, DR. RUEL B. SPOUSES MARIA

FRANCISCO substituted by VILLAFRIA,
vs.
MA. GRACIA RINOZA PLAZO and MA. FE RINOZA ALARAS

G.R. No. 187524

August 5, 2015
DOCTRINE:
It has been repeatedly held that when a person dies without leaving pending obligations to be
paid, his heirs, whether of age or not, are not bound to submit the property to a judicial
administration, which is always long and costly, or to apply for the appointment of an
administrator by the Court. It has been uniformly held that in such case the judicial
administration and the appointment of an administrator are superfluous and unnecessary
proceedings.
 JOSE NORBERTO ANG
vs.
THE ESTATE OF SY SO

GR 182252
August 3, 2016
DOCTRINE:
The Solicitor General, however, may initiate an action for reversion or escheat of the land to the
State. In sales of real estate to aliens incapable of holding title thereto by virtue of the provisions
of the Constitution, both the vendor and the vendee are deemed to have committed the
constitutional violation. Being in pari delicto the courts will not afford protection to either party.
The proper party who could assail the sale is the Solicitor General.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
GERRY LIPATA Y ORTIZA

G.R No. 200302

April 20, 2016
DOCTRINE:
If the act or omission complained of arises from quasi- delict or, by provision of law, results in
an injury to person or real or personal property, the separate civil action must be filed against
the executor or administrator of the estate pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court.
On the other hand, if the act or omission complained of arises from contract, the separate civil
action must be filed against the estate of the accused pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules
of Court.

HENRY H. TENG, Petitioner,

vs.
LAWRENCE C. TING, EDMUND TING AND ANTHONY TING, Respondent.

G.R. No. 184237

September 21, 2016
DOCTRINE:
The exclusion of the Malate property from the inventory of Teng Ching Lay's estate is correctly
ordered by the trial court primarily because said issue had already become covered by the
principle of res judicata.

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment or decree, on the merits rendered by a court
of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits
and on all points and matters determined in the previous suit. The foundation principle upon
which the doctrine rests is that the parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue
more than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties
and those in privity with them in law or estate.

RULE 90Distribution and Partition of the Estate

Section 2.Questions as to advancement to be determined. — Questions as to advancement made,

or alleged to have been made, by the deceased to any heir may be heard and determined by the
court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the final order of the court thereon shall
be binding on the person raising the questions and on the heir.
 GUARDIANSHIP, TRUSTEES, ADOPTION

WILSON GO AND PETER GO

VS.
THE ESTATE OF THE LATE FELISATAMIO DE BUENA VENTURA

G.R. NO. 211972

JULY 22, 2015
DOCTRINES:
Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to which is vested in
another. It is a fiduciary relationship that obliges the trustee to deal with the property for the
benefit of the beneficiary. Trust relations between parties may either be express or implied. An
express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties, while an implied trust
comes into being by operation of law

Express trusts are created by direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed, or
will, or by words either expressly or impliedly evincing an intention to create a trust. Under
Article 1444 of the Civil Code, "[n]o particular words are required for the creation of an express
trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended." It is possible to create a trust without
using the word "trust" or "trustee."
Express trusts prescribe in ten (10) years from the time the trust is repudiated.

SPOUSES ARMANDO AND LORNA TRINIDAD

VS.
DONA MARIE GLENN IMSON

G.R. NO. 197728

SEPTEMBER 16, 2015
DOCTRINES:
Intent as an indispensable element, is a matter that necessarily lies in the evidence, that is, by
evidence, even circumstantial, of statements made by the parties at or before the time title
passes.

The fact that the Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights was put in writing and notarized
does not accord it the quality of incontrovertibility otherwise provided by the Parole Evidence
Rule.

JOSE NORBERTO ANG

VS.
THE ESTATE OF SY SO

GR NO. 182252
AUGUST 03, 2016
DOCTRINE:
A property cannot be legally reconveyed to one who had no right to own them in the first place.
Thus, a trustee cannot be validly appointed.
 EUGENIO SAN JUAN GERONIMO
VS.
KAREN SANTOS

G.R. NO. 197099

SEPTEMBER 28, 2015
DOCTRINE:

But definitely, the mere registration of a child in his or her birth certificate as the child of the
supposed parents is not a valid adoption, does not confer upon the child the status of an adopted
child and the legal rights of such child, and even amounts to simulation of the child's birth or
falsification of his or her birth certificate, which is a public document. Furthermore, it is well-
settled that a record of birth is merely a prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. It is
not conclusive evidence of the truthfulness of the statements made there by the interested
parties.

RIZALITO DAVID
VS.
SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

G.R. NO. 221538

SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
DOCTRINE:
Our statutes on adoption allow for the recognition of foundlings' Filipino citizenship on account
of their birth. They benefit from this without having to do any act to perfect their citizenship or
without having to complete the naturalization process. Thus, by definition, they are natural-born
citizens.

MARY GRACE POE-LLAMANZARES

VS.
COMELEC

G.R. NOS. 221697 & 221698-700

MARCH 8, 2016
DOCTRINE:
R.A. No. 8043 x xx, R.A. No. 8552 x xx and this Court's A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC x xx all expressly
refer to "Filipino children" and include foundlings as among Filipino children who may be
adopted.

JOSE ANG
VS.
ESTATE OF SY SO

G.R. NO. 182252

AUGUST 03, 2016
DOCTRINE:
Petitioner had not been legally adopted by respondent and thus, there being no legal
relationship between the parties
 WRIT OF AMPARO

SPOUSES ROZELLE RAYMOND MARTIN AND CLAUDINE MARGARET

SANTIAGO, Petitioners,
vs.
RAFFY TULFO, BEN TULFO, AND ERWIN TULFO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 205039

October 21, 2015

DOCTRINE:
The contextual genesis, at least, for the present Amparo Rule has limited the remedy as a
response to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof.
"Extrajudicial killings," according to case law, are generally characterized as "killings
committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings,"
while "enforced disappearances," according to Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 9851,
otherwise known as the "Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law,
Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity," "means the arrest, detention, or abduction of
persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political
organization followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give
information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing from the
protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

CHAIRPERSON SIEGFRED B. MISON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON[1] OF

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & DEPORTATION,[2] PETITIONER,
~vs~
HON. PAULINO Q. GALLEGOS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-MANILA, BRANCH 47 & JA HOON KU,
RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 211403

June 23, 2015
DOCTRINE:
It is to be emphasized that the fundamental function of the writ of amparo is to cause the
disclosure of details concerning the extrajudicial killing or the enforced disappearance of an
aggrieved party. As Ku and his whereabouts were never hidden, there was no need for the
issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo in the case at bar

MAYOR WILLIAM N. MAMBA, ATTY. FRANCISCO N. MAMBA, JR., ARIEL

MALANA, NARDING AGGANGAN, JOMARI SAGALON, JUN CINABRE,
FREDERICK BALIGOD, ROMMEL ENCOLLADO, JOSEPH TUMALIUAN, and
RANDY DAYAG, Petitioners
vs.
LEOMAR BUENO, Respondent

G.R. No. 191416

February 7, 2017
DOCTRINE:
What is prohibited under Section 11 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC are motions for reconsideration
directed against interlocutory orders or interim relief orders, not those assailing the final
judgment or order. The Court emphasized that the writ of amparo serves both preventive and
curative roles in addressing the problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. 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.
 HABEAS CORPUS

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DATUKAN

MALANG SALIBO, DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO, Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, QUEZON CITY JAIL ANNEX, BJMP BUILDING, CAMP BAGONG DIWA,
TAGUIG CITY and all other persons acting on his behalf and/or having custody of
DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 197597

April 08, 2015
DOCTRINE:
Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a person deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity. In
such cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is continuously being illegally
detained. Petitioner Salibo was not arrested by virtue of any warrant charging him of an offense.
He was not restrained under a lawful process or an order of a court. He was illegally deprived
of his liberty, and, therefore, correctly availed himself of a Petition for Habeas Corpus.

HABEAS DATA

RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID SUZARA, Petitioners,
vs.
ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, and JOHN
DOES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 202666

September 29, 2014
DOCTRINE:
The writ of habeas data is a 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.11 It is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy,
honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to
enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s right
to control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is
being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.

CHANGE OF NAME

EMELITA BASILIO GAN, vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 207147

September 14, 2016
DOCTRINE:

A change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right; a proper and reasonable cause must
exist before a person may be authorized to change his name.
 CONSTITUTION OF A FAMILY HOME

FLORANTE VITUG, Petitioner, vs.

EVANGELINE A. ABUDA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 201264

January 11, 2016
DOCTRINE:
Article 155 of the Family Code explicitly provides that debts secured by mortgages are exempted
from the rule against execution, forced sale, or attachment of family home.

ENRICO S. EULOGIO and NATIVIDAD V. EUGLOGIO, Petitioners

vs.
PATERNO C. BELL, SR., ROGELIA CALINGASAN-BELL, PATERNO WILLIAM
BELL, JR. FLORENCIA FELICIA VICTORIA BELL, PATERNO FERDINAND BELL
III and PATERNO BENERANO BELL IV, Respondents

G.R. No. 186322

July 8, 2015
DOCTRINE:

The exemption of the family home from execution, forced sale or attachment is limited to
Php300,000 in urban areas and Php200,000 in rural areas, unless those maximum values are
adjusted by law. If it is shown, though, that those amounts do not match the present value of the
peso because of currency fluctuations, the amount of exemption shall be based on the value that
is most favorable to the constitution of a family home. Any amount in excess of those limits can
be applied to the payment of any of the obligations specified in Articles 155 and 160.

CORRECTION OF ENTRIES

ROSARIO BANGUIS-TAMBUYAT, Petitioner,

vs.
WENIFREDA BALCOM-TAMBUYAT, Respondent.

G.R. No. 202805

March 23, 2015
DOCTRINE:

Under Section 108 of PD 1529, the proceeding for the erasure, alteration, or amendment of a
certificate of title may be resorted to in seven instances: (1) when registered interests of any
description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (2)
when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (3)
when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum
thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (4) when the name of any person on the certificate has
been changed; (5) when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the
marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be
affected; (6) when a corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not
conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; and (7) when there is reasonable
ground for the amendment or alteration of title.

Proceedings under Section 108 are “summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions
of mistakes which are only clerical but certainly not controversial issues.
 WRIT OF KALIKASAN

HON. RAMON JESUS P. PAJE, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR),
Petitioner,
vs.
HON. TEODORO A. CASIÑO, ET. AL., Respondents

G.R. No. 207257

February 3, 2015
DOCTRINE:

Under Section 1 of Rule 7 (The Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan), the following requisites must be
present to avail of this extraordinary remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation
arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or
entity; and (3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces. If the petitioner successfully proves the foregoing requisites, the court
shall render judgment granting the privilege of the writ of kalikasan. Otherwise, the petition
shall be denied.

LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
AGHAM PARTY LIST (represented by its President Rep. Angelo B. Palmones),
Respondent.

G.R. No. 209165

April 12, 2016
DOCTRINE:

It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan has to
show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be violated.

VICTORIA SEGOVIA, ET AL.

VS.
THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HIS
EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 211010.

March 7, 2017
DOCTRINE:
It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan has to
show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be violated.
 INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH
APPLICATIONS, INC., ET.AL.
VS.
GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), ET.AL.

G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 and 209430

December 8, 2015

DOCTRINES:
LEGAL STANDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASE
The liberalized rule on standing is now enshrined in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases. The provision on citizen
suits in the Rules “collapses the tradional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle
that humans are stewards of nature,” and aims to “further encourage the protection of the
environment.

MOOTNESS AND ACADEMIC OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE

The case falls under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness
principle, the human and environmental health hazards posed by the introduction of a
genetically modified plant which is a very popular staple vegetable among Filipinos is an issue
of paramount public interest.

PRIMARY JURISDICTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

The provisions of DAO 2002-08 do not provide a speedy or adequate remedy for the respondents
to determine the questions of unique national and local importance raised in this case that
pertain to laws and rules for environmental protection, thus Greenpeace, et.al. is justified in
coming to the Supreme Court.

NEGLECT OF DUTY OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE:

It likewise contains general principles and minimum guidelines that the concerned agencies are
expected to follow and which their respective rules and regulations must conform with. In cases
of conflict in applying the principles, the principle of protecting the public interest and welfare
shall always prevail, and no provision of the NBF shall be construed as to limit the legal
authority and mandate of heads of departments and agencies to consider the national interest
and public welfare in making biosafety decisions.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:
SEC 2. Standards for application. – In applying the precautionary principle, the following
factors, among others, may be considered: (1) threats to human life or health; (2) inequity to
present or future generations; or (3) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of
the environmental rights of those affected.

When the features of uncertainty, possibility of irreversible harm, and possibility of serious harm
coincide, the case for the precautionary principle is strongest. The Supreme Court found all
three (3) conditions present.