Supreme Court Case on Trustee Powers

Case 1: Trustee
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-16708 October 31, 1962
TRUSTEESHIP OF THE MINORS BENIGNO, ANGELA and ANTONIO all surnamed PEREZ Y TUASON, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Judicial Guardian of BENIGNO PEREZ, ANTONIO M. PEREZ, judicial guardian-appellant, vs. J. ANTONIO ARANETA, trustee-appellee. Alfonso Felix, Jr. for judicial guardian-appellant. Araneta and Araneta for trustee-appellee. CONCEPCION, J.: This is an appeal by writ of error from an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal denying a motion of appellant, Antonio M. Perez, as judicial guardian of his children, the minors Benigno, Angela, and Antonio, all surnamed Perez y Tuason. In pursuance of the provisions of the will of the late Angela S. Tuason which was probated in Special Proceedings No. 585 of said Court appellee J. Antonio Araneta was on March 24, 1950, appointed, in Special Proceedings No. Q-73 of the same Court, as trustee of property bequeathed by the deceased to some of her heirs, including her grandchildren, the aforementioned minors. On October 4, 1950, appellee moved for the approval of accounts and the fixing of his compensation as such trustee. Appellant's wife, Angela I. Tuason, hereafter referred to as Mrs. Perez, as well as the mother and guardian at the time, of said minors, objected thereto and urged the court to remove appellee as trustee and appoint the Philippine Trust in his place and to revoke, not only certain sale made by him, but, also, an order of the court dated March 24, 1950, granting him the power to sell trust properties without special judicial authorization therefor. Subsequently, appellant joined his wife in seeking this relief. After appropriate proceedings, said Court issued on December 23, 1950, an order approving said accounts, deferring action on the compensation of the trustee, modifying in part said order of March 24, 1950, and denying the motion of Mrs. Perez. The pertinent part of the aforementioned order of December 23, 1950, reads as follows: It being established that the trust was expressly created by the deceased, we shall now examine whether the trustee comes under the active supervision of the Court and whether our order of March 24, 1950, granting to said trustee authority to sell the trust res without the need of judicial authorization erroneous or not. The Court accepts in view urged by the trustee that only when the testator "has omitted in his will to appoint a trustee" may the Court appoint one. This is in a accordance with Section 2, Rule 99, of the Rules of Court. When an express trust has been created, the powers of the trust shall be determined by the trust instrument itself. In this particular case, the trustee J. Antonio Araneta was given "amplios poderes de vender los mismos". The testatrix emphasizes her desire that the trustee shall have ample powers when in another part of her will she states that the powers of said trustee shall be "los poderes mas amplios permitidos por la ley". There is nothing against the law for a trustor to grant to the trustee ample powers, and when the deceased Angela S. Tuason granted said powers to the trustee, she emphasized her intention that in the exercise of said powers by the trustee, there should be no court supervision. "By the terms of trust, it may be left to the discretion of the trustee whether or not to exercise a power, or where he is directed to exercise the power, the time and manner of its exercise may be left to his discretion. To the extent to which the trustee has discretion, the Court will not control his exercise as long as he do not exceed the limits of the discretion conferred upon him. The court will not substitute its own judgment for his . . . . The cases are numerous in which it has been held that where discretion is conferred upon the trustee with respect to the exercise of a power, the court will not interfere with him in his exercise or failure to exercise the power so long as he is not guilty of an abuse of discretion. (Scott on Trusts, Vol. 2, Sec. 187)"
Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)
Bachelor of Laws 3-A
Such being the case, there is no reason for the court to intervene in the execution by the trustee of the powers granted to him by the trustor. We conclude, therefore, that our order of March 24, 1950 granting authority to the trustee J. Antonio Araneta to sell the trust res without judicial authority is correct. For the purpose, however, of safeguarding the interests of the beneficiaries of this trust, said order is hereby amended as follows: (a) That the bond of the trustee is hereby increased from P10,000.00 to P30,000.00 and the premium for the bond (P30,000.00) shall be for the account of the trust; (b) That the Trustee may sell, encumber or otherwise dispose of any of the trust res without the need of judicial authorization; provided, that if the amount involved exceeds P30,000.00, the trustee shall notify the natural guardians or the judicial guardian in case there be one appointed by the Court of the beneficiaries ten (10) days before the proposed sale or encumbrance is executed, and in case the amount involved be P30,000.00 or less, the trustee shall advise said guardians within ten (10) days after executing a deed of sale or encumbrance. WHEREFORE, (1) the accounts filed by the trustee as per Annexes A, B, and C attached to his motion of October 5, 1950 are hereby approved; (2) the petition of trustee to fix his compensation is hereby deferred until such time as he shall present it again; (3) the petition filed by the parents of the minors for the removal of the trustee J. Antonio Araneta is hereby denied. Likewise, their petition that the Philippine Trust Co. or Atty. Frank W. Brady be appointed co-trustee denied; 4) the petition that the sale of the bed in favor of Antonio Tuason, Jr. be revoked is hereby denied; and (5) the petition that the order of this court, dated March 24, 1950, giving the trustee power to sell without the need of judicial authorization be revoked is also hereby denied. A reconsideration of this order having been denied, & Mrs. Perez filed with the Supreme Court a petition G.R. No. L-6182 thereof for certiorari, with preliminary injunction, to annul said orders of March 24 and December 23, 1950. A writ of preliminary injunction was issued this by Court soon thereafter. In a decision promulgated April 13, 1955, we denied said petition and dissolved said writ of preliminary injunction. In pursuance of the aforementioned orders of March 24 and December 23, 1950, appellee wrote on June 23, 1959, to appellant, as the then judicial guardian of said minor a letter informing him of a proposed sale to Ortigas & Co., Ltd., of several lots under trusteeship, located in Marikina, Rizal, and aggregating 42.6091 hectares, at the rate of P2.93 a square meter. We quote from said communicable petition: Pursuant to the order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City in trusteeship proceeding No. Q-73, I with to advise you that ten (10) days after your receipt of this letter, I, in my capacity as trustee in said proceedings, shall execute deed of sale with mortgage in favor of Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership, the following lots located at Marikina which form part of the trust estate: T.C.T. (Rizal) 22395 " " " " 22396 " " No. Area (Sq m.) 249 138,682 273 159,054 21,089 24,040 7,968 74,736
2
Lote No. 49-C-3-A-3-C-1-A-2 49-C-3-A-3-C-2-A-2-B 49-C-3-A-3-C-1-A-1 49-C-3-A-3-C-2-A-2-A 49-C-3-A-3-C-2-A-7 49-C-3-A-3-C-3-A-3-1-4 49-C-3-A-3-C-3-A-3-A-4-A-1 49-C-3-A-3-C-3-A-3-A-4-A-3
Psd. 29965 " " " 18247 29965 " "
The price is P1,250,000.00 payable under the following conditions: 1. Upon acceptance of the proposal, the sum of P20,000.00. 2. Upon signing the deed of sale with mortgage, the sum of P300,000.00. 3. The balance shall be paid within a period of one and a half-years, with interest at 6% per annum. 4. The property must be sold from all liens and encumbrances, particularly a guarantee that there are no squatters. 5. Broker's commission shall be for buyer's account. Three (3) days later, appellant informed appellee by letter (Exhibit C) of his (appellant's) objections to the proposed sale. Moreover, on July 1, 1959 appellant filed, in the trusteeship proceedings, a motion praying for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain appellee from proceeding with the sale. Subsequently, the Philippine National Bank, as guardian of the estate of Benigno Perez y Tuason, one of the heirs of Angela I. Tuason, deceased, adopted said motion of appellant herein as its own. At the instance of appellant, a notice of lis pendenswas, on July 29, 1959, annotated on the original certificates of title to the property in question. After due hearing, the lower court issued an order, dated October 15, 1959, denying appellant's motion and petition for a writ of preliminary injunction. Hence, this appeal by Antonio M. Perez. The Philippine National Bank has not joined him in the appeal. Subsequently, appellee effected the sale aforementioned to Ortigas & Co., Ltd. The main issues are: (1) whether or not the sum of P2.93 per square meter agreed upon with Ortigas & Co., Ltd., is the fair market value of the property aforementioned; and (2) whether the sale thereof would be injurious to the interest of the beneficiaries or cestui que trust. With respect to the first issue, appellant maintains that the fair market value of the property above referred to is P5.00 a square meter, as stated in the report (Exhibit E) of his realty estate expert, Mr. A. Varias. It appears from this report that the conclusion therein reached by Mr. A. Varias is based upon (a) some offers to sell properties located in the vicinity of the one involved in this case; and (b) certain sales of real estate specified in the report. However, offers to sell are not competent evidence of the fair market value of a property. Said offers to sell are no better than offers to buy, which have been held be inadmissible as proof of said value. (City of Manila Estrada, 25 Phil. 208; Manila Railroad Co. vs. Aguila 35 Phil. 118; City of Davao vs. Dacudao L-3741, May 2, 1952.) Indeed, . . . To imagine a sale without a buyer would be absurd, for if there is no buyer the commodity would bring nothing . . . . In discussing the term "market value" the author of a well-known treaties on the subject of damages observes that to make a market there must be both buying and selling; and the "market value" says he, is that reasonable sum which the property would bring on a fair sale by a man willing but not obliged to sell to a man willing but not obliged to buy. (Sedgewick on Damages, sec. 245; cited in Compagnie Franco-Indo Chinoise vs. Deutsch-Australiache, 39 Phil. 474.) The aforementioned report relies, also, upon the sale a lot of 9,679 square meters at P5.70 a square meter and two (2) sales each of lot of 20,000 square meters and a sale of a lot of 281,452 square meters, at P4.00 square meter. These transactions can not serve as basis for the determination of the value of the property in dispute for the lands involved in the former are much smaller than the latter, the area of which is 426,091 square meters, and it is a matter of common knowledge that the price becomes lesser as the size of the property sold becomes bigger. Moreover, the lands covered by said transactions do not appear to be in the vicinity of the property in litigation. What is more, no effort has been made to prove that the nature and condition of the former are analogous, or at least, comparable to those of the latter. In Manila Railroad Co. vs. Mitchell (49 Phil. 801), this Court held: . . . The exhibits were clearly inadmissible in evidence and properly rejected by the (lower) court. In order that such evidence may be admitted, it is necessary that the properties sold be in the immediate neighborhood or within the zone of the commercial activity with which the condemned property is identified. (Emphasis supplied.)
Upon the other hand, it appears that in 1955 the Universal Textile Mills bought a lot of 110,004 square meters near the trust properties in question at P2.50 a square meter, whereas a land of 213,458 square meters, situated in the same neighborhood, was, in 1956, acquired by the Manila Bay Spinning Mill, at P1.50 a square meter. Again, prior to the sale of said trust properties to Ortigas & Co., Ltd. offers to purchase the same neighborhood were made by United Laboratories, Inc. and one Mr. Philipps at P2.50 and P2.70, respectively, a square meter. It would thus appear that the price of P2.93 a square meter agreed upon with Ortigas & Co., Ltd. is fairly representative of the market value of said land, and this is borne out by the testimony of Arturo Ruis and Lauro Marquez, the real estate brokers who took the witness stand for herein appellee. It is next urged that the sale of the property in question is not only unnecessary, but also injurious to the minors represented by appellant herein, by reason of possible devaluation, and high income taxes. This pretense is predicated, however, upon sheer speculation. Furthermore, the last will and testament of Angela S. Tuason, in pursuance of which the trust was established, provides that: Cuarta. Instituyo como mis unicos herederos a mis mencionados tres hijos a razon de una novena parte del caudal hereditario que dejare para cada uno de rellos. Lego a mi hijo Antonio otra porcion equivalente a dos novenas partes del caudal hereditario. Lego asi mismo a mis nietos que fueren hijos de mi hija Nieves, otra porcion equivalents a dos novenas partes del caudal hereditario. Y finalmeinte lego a mis nietos que fueren hijos de mi hija Angela otra porcion equivalente a dos novenas partes del caudal hereditario. Dichos tres legados, sin embargo, estansuietos a la manda que se menciona en el parrafo siguiente Los dos legados a favor de mis mencionados nietos seran administrados por mi Albacea J. Antonio Araneta (y en defecto de este, su hermano, Salvador Araneta), con amplios poderes de Nender los mismos, y con su producto adquirir otros bienes, y con derecho a cobrar por su administracion, honorarios razonables Los poderes de dicho administrador seran los de un trustee con los poderes mas amplias permitidos por la ley Debera sin embargo, rendir trimestral mente cuenta de su administracion a los legatarios que fueren mayores de edad y a los tutores de los que fueren menores de edad Y asimismo debera hacerles entrega de la participacion que a cada legatario corresponda en las rentas netas de la administracion. La administracion sobre un grupo cesara cuando todos mis nietos de dicho grupo llegaren a su mayoria de edad, y una mayoria de los mismos acordaren la terminacion de la administracion. Por nietos debe entenderse so nolamente a los nietos varones sino tambien a los nietos mujeres. Referring to this provision of said will, we had occasion to say in G.R. No. L-6182: . . . throughout clause 4 of the will, one can see that the testatrix placed implicit confidence and trust in Araneta whom she designated as trustee, and for him to continue for a long time, not only until the minor children of Angela S. Tuason including those yet unborn, attained the age of majority but only when a majority of them decided to end the trust. In short, the trustor had such faith and confidence appellee that she relied fully upon his judgment and discretion. The exercise thereof by appellees should not be disturbed, therefore, except upon clear proof of fraud or bad faith, or unless the transaction in question is manifestly prejudicial to the interest of the minors aforementioned petitioned. Such is not the situation obtaining in the present case. WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. It is so ordered. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Case 2: Adoption
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila G.R. No. 143989 July 14, 2003
ISABELITA S. LAHOM, petitioner, vs. JOSE MELVIN SIBULO (previously referred to as "DR. MELVIN S. LAHOM"), respondent. The bliss of marriage and family would be to most less than complete without children. The realization could have likely prodded the spouses Dr. Diosdado Lahom and Isabelita Lahom to take into their care Isabelita's nephew Jose Melvin Sibulo and to bring him up as their own. At the tender age of two, Jose Melvin enjoyed the warmth, love and support of the couple who treated the child like their own. Indeed, for years, Dr. and Mrs. Lahom fancied on legally adopting Jose Melvin. Finally, in 1971, the couple decided to file a petition for adoption. On 05 May 1972, an order granting the petition was issued that made all the more intense than before the feeling of affection of the spouses for Melvin. In keeping with the court order, the Civil Registrar of Naga City changed the name "Jose Melvin Sibulo" to "Jose Melvin Lahom." A sad turn of events came many years later. Eventually, in December of 1999, Mrs. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind the decree of adoption before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, of Naga City. In her petition, she averred "7. That x x x despite the proddings and pleadings of said spouses, respondent refused to change his surname from Sibulo to Lahom, to the frustrations of petitioner particularly her husband until the latter died, and even before his death he had made known his desire to revoke respondent's adoption, but was prevented by petitioner's supplication, however with his further request upon petitioner to give to charity whatever properties or interest may pertain to respondent in the future. xxx xxx xxx
"10. That respondent continued using his surname Sibulo to the utter disregard of the feelings of herein petitioner, and his records with the Professional Regulation Commission showed his name as Jose Melvin M. Sibulo originally issued in 1978 until the present, and in all his dealings and activities in connection with his practice of his profession, he is Jose Melvin M. Sibulo. xxx xxx xxx
"13. That herein petitioner being a widow, and living alone in this city with only her household helps to attend to her, has yearned for the care and show of concern from a son, but respondent remained indifferent and would only come to Naga to see her once a year. "14. That for the last three or four years, the medical check-up of petitioner in Manila became more frequent in view of a leg ailment, and those were the times when petitioner would need most the care and support from a love one, but respondent all the more remained callous and utterly indifferent towards petitioner which is not expected of a son. "15. That herein respondent has recently been jealous of petitioner's nephews and nieces whenever they would find time to visit her, respondent alleging that they were only motivated by their desire for some material benefits from petitioner. "16. That in view of respondent's insensible attitude resulting in a strained and uncomfortable relationship between him and petitioner, the latter has suffered wounded feelings, knowing that after all respondent's only motive to his adoption is his expectancy of his alleged rights over the properties of herein petitioner and her late husband, clearly shown by his recent filing of Civil Case No. 99-4463 for partition against petitioner, thereby totally eroding her love and affection towards respondent, rendering the decree of adoption, considering respondent to be the child of petitioner, for all legal purposes, has been negated for which reason there is no more basis for its existence, hence this petition for revocation,"1
Prior to the institution of the case, specifically on 22 March 1998, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8552, also known as the Domestic Adoption Act, went into effect. The new statute deleted from the law the right of adopters to rescind a decree of adoption. Section 19 of Article VI of R.A. No. 8552 now reads: "SEC. 19. Grounds for Rescission of Adoption. Upon petition of the adoptee, with the assistance of the Department if a minor or if over eighteen (18) years of age but is incapacitated, as guardian/counsel, the adoption may be rescinded on any of the following grounds committed by the adopter(s): (a) repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by the adopter(s) despite having undergone counseling; (b) attempt on the life of the adoptee; (c) sexual assault or violence; or (d) abandonment and failure to comply with parental obligations. "Adoption, being in the best interest of the child, shall not be subject to rescission by the adopter(s). However, the adopter(s) may disinherit the adoptee for causes provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code." (emphasis supplied) Jose Melvin moved for the dismissal of the petition, contending principally (a) that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case and (b) that the petitioner had no cause of action in view of the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 8552. Petitioner asseverated, by way of opposition, that the proscription in R.A. No. 8552 should not retroactively apply, i.e., to cases where the ground for rescission 2 3 of the adoption vested under the regime of then Article 348 of the Civil Code and Article 192 of the Family Code. In an order, dated 28 April 2000, the trial court held thusly: "On the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, Section 5(c) of R.A. No. 8369 confers jurisdiction to this Court, having been designated Family Court in A.M. No. 99-11-07 SC. "On the matter of no cause of action, the test on the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the Court could render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of said complaint ( De Jesus, et al. vs. Belarmino, et al., 95 Phil. 365). "Admittedly, Section 19, Article VI of R.A. No. 8552 deleted the right of an adopter to rescind an adoption earlier granted under the Family Code. Conformably, on the face of the petition, indeed there is lack of cause of action. "Petitioner however, insists that her right to rescind long acquired under the provisions of the Family Code should be respected. Assuming for the sake of argument, that petitioner is entitled to rescind the adoption of respondent granted on May 5, 1972, said right should have been exercised within the period allowed by the Rules. From the averments in the petition, it appears clear that the legal grounds for the petition have been discovered and known to petitioner for more than five (5) years, prior to the filing of the instant petition on December 1, 1999, hence, the action if any, had already prescribed. (Sec. 5, Rule 100 Revised Rules of Court) "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, the petition is ordered dismissed."
4
Via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court, petitioner raises the following questions; viz: 1. May the subject adoption, decreed on 05 May 1972, still be revoked or rescinded by an adopter after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552? 2. In the affirmative, has the adopter's action prescribed? A brief background on the law and its origins could provide some insights on the subject. In ancient times, the Romans undertook 5 adoption to assure male heirs in the family. The continuity of the adopter's family was the primary purpose of adoption and all matters relating to it basically focused on the rights of the adopter. There was hardly any mention about the rights of the adopted.6 Countries, like Greece, France, Spain and England, in an effort to preserve inheritance within the family, neither allowed nor recognized adoption.7 It was only much later when adoption was given an impetus in law and still later when the welfare of the child became a paramount concern.8 Spain itself which previously disfavored adoption ultimately relented and accepted the Roman law concept of adoption which, subsequently, was to find its way to the archipelago. The Americans came and introduced their own 9 ideas on adoption which, unlike most countries in Europe, made the interests of the child an overriding consideration. In the early part of the century just passed, the rights of children invited universal attention; the Geneva Declaration of Rights of the Child of
Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals) Bachelor of Laws 3-A 6
1924 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, followed by the United Nations Declarations of the Rights of the Child,11 were written instruments that would also protect and safeguard the rights of adopted children. The Civil Code of the 12 13 Philippines of 1950 on adoption, later modified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code and then by the Family Code of the 14 Philippines, gave immediate statutory acknowledgment to the rights of the adopted. In 1989, the United Nations initiated the Convention of the Rights of the Child. The Philippines, a State Party to the Convention, accepted the principle that adoption was impressed with social and moral responsibility, and that its underlying intent was geared to favor the adopted child. R.A. No. 8552 secured these rights and privileges for the adopted. Most importantly, it affirmed the legitimate status of the adopted child, not only in his new family but also in the society as well. The new law withdrew the right of an adopter to rescind the adoption decree and gave to the adopted child the sole right to sever the legal ties created by adoption. Petitioner, however, would insist that R.A. No. 8552 should not adversely affect her right to annul the adoption decree, nor deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction to hear the case, both being vested under the Civil Code and the Family Code, the laws then in force. The concept of "vested right" is a consequence of the constitutional guaranty of due process that expresses apresent fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice is protected against arbitrary state action; 16 it includes not only legal or equitable 17 title to the enforcement of a demand but also exemptions from new obligations created after the right has become vested. Rights 18 19 are considered vested when the right to enjoyment is a present interest, absolute, unconditional, and perfect or fixed and irrefutable. In Republic vs. Court of Appeals,20 a petition to adopt Jason Condat was filed by Zenaida C. Bobiles on 02 February 1988 when the Child and Youth Welfare Code (Presidential Decree No. 603) allowed an adoption to be sought by either spouse or both of them. After the trial court had rendered its decision and while the case was still pending on appeal, the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209), mandating joint adoption by the husband and wife , took effect. Petitioner Republic argued that the case should be dismissed for having been filed by Mrs. Bobiles alone and without being joined by the husband. The Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. The petition to adopt Jason, having been filed with the court at the time when P.D. No. 603 was still in effect , the right of Mrs. Bobiles to file the 21 petition, without being joined by her husband, according to the Court had become vested. In Republic vs. Miller, spouses Claude and Jumrus Miller, both aliens, sought to adopt Michael Madayag. On 29 July 1988, the couple filed a petition to formalize Michael's adoption having theretofore been taken into their care. At the time the action was commenced, P.D. No. 603 allowed aliens to adopt. After the decree of adoption and while on appeal before the Court of Appeals, the Family Code was enacted into law on 08 August 1988 disqualifying aliens from adopting Filipino children. The Republic then prayed for the withdrawal of the adoption decree. In discarding the argument posed by the Republic, the Supreme Court ruled that the controversy should be resolved in the light of the law governing at the time the petition was filed. It was months after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552 that herein petitioner filed an action to revoke the decree of adoption granted in 1975. By then, the new law,22 had already abrogated and repealed the right of an adopter under the Civil Code and the Family Code to rescind a decree of adoption. Consistently with its earlier pronouncements, the Court should now hold that the action for rescission of the adoption decree, having been initiated by petitioner after R.A. No. 8552 had come into force, no longer could be pursued. Interestingly, even before the passage of the statute, an action to set aside the adoption is subject to the five-year bar rule under Rule 10023 of the Rules of Court and that the adopter would lose the right to revoke the adoption decree after the lapse of that period. The exercise of the right within a prescriptive period is a condition that could not fulfill the requirements of a vested right entitled to protection. It must also be acknowledged that a person has no vested right in statutory privileges. 24 While adoption has often been referred to in the context of a "right," the privilege to adopt is itself not naturally innate or fundamental but rather a right merely created by statute.25 It is a privilege that is governed by the state's determination on what it may deem to be for the best interest and welfare of the child.26 Matters relating to adoption, including the withdrawal of the right of an adopter to nullify the adoption decree, are subject to regulation by the State.27 Concomitantly, a right of action given by statute may be taken away at anytime before it has been exercised.28 While R.A. No. 8552 has unqualifiedly withdrawn from an adopter a consequential right to rescind the adoption decree even in cases where the adoption might clearly turn out to be undesirable, it remains, nevertheless, the bounden duty of the Court to apply the law. Dura lex sed lex would be the hackneyed truism that those caught in the law have to live with. It is still noteworthy, however, that an adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of adoption, can always for valid reasons cause the forfeiture of certain benefits otherwise accruing to an undeserving child. For instance, upon the grounds recognized by law, an adopter may deny to an adopted child his legitime and, by a will and testament, may freely exclude him from having a share in the disposable portion of his estate. WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of the court a quo is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.
15
10
Case 3: Habeas Corpus

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 111180 November 16, 1995 DAISIE T. DAVID, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON R. VILLAR, respondents.
MENDOZA, J.: Petitioner Daisie T. David worked as secretary of private respondent Ramon R. Villar, a businessman in Angeles City. Private respondent is a married man and the father of four children, all grown-up. After a while, the relationship between petitioner and private respondent developed into an intimate one, as a result of which a son, Christopher J., was born on March 9, 1985 to them. Christopher J. was followed by two more children, both girls, namely Christine, born on June 9, 1986, and Cathy Mae on April 24, 1988. The relationship became known to private respondent's wife when Daisie took Christopher J, to Villar's house at Villa Teresa in Angeles City sometime in 1986 and introduced him to Villar's legal wife. After this, the children of Daisie were freely brought by Villar to his house as they were eventually accepted by his legal family. In the summer of 1991, Villar asked Daisie to allow Christopher J., then six years of age, to go with his family to Boracay. Daisie agreed, but after the trip, Villar refused to give back the child. Villar said he had enrolled Christopher J. at the Holy Family Academy for the next school year. On July 30, 1991, Daisie filed a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of Christopher J. After hearing, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58 at Angeles City, rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent: 1. the rightful custody of the minor Christopher J. T. David is hereby given to the natural mother, the herein petitioner Daisie T. David; 2. respondent is hereby ordered to give a temporary support of P3,000.00 a month to the subject minor Christopher J. T. David, Christine David and Cathy Mae David to take effect upon the finality of this decision; and 3. to pay the costs of this suit. SO ORDERED. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding:
We agree with the respondent-appellant's view that this is not proper in a habeas corpus case. Law and jurisprudence wherein the question of custody of a minor child may be decided in a habeas corpus case contemplate a situation where the parents are married to each other but are separated. This is so because under the Family Code, the father and mother have joint parental authority over their legitimate children and in case of separation of the parents there is need to determine rightful custody of their children. The same does not hold true in an adulterous relationship, as in the case at bar, the child born out of such a relationship is under the parental authority of the mother by express provision of the law. Hence, the question of custody and support should be brought in a case singularly filed for the purpose. In point of fact, this is more advisable in the case at bar because the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the other minor children of the petitioner-appellee and respondent-appellant and, therefore, cannot properly provide for their support. Admittedly, respondent-appellant is financially well-off, he being a very rich businessman; whereas, petitionerappellee depends upon her sisters and parents for support. In fact, he financially supported petitioner-appellee and her three minor children. It is, therefore, for the best interest of Christopher J that he should temporarily remain under the custody of respondent-appellant until the issue on custody and support shall have been determined in a proper case. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE, and a NEW ONE ENTERED dismissing the petition for habeas corpus in Special Proceeding No. 4489. Daisie in turn filed this petition for review of the appellate court's decision. Rule 102, 1 of the Rules of Court provides that "the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto." It is indeed true, as the Court of Appeals observed, that the determination of the right to the custody of minor children is relevant in cases where the parents, who are married to each other, are for some reason separated from each other. It does not follow, however, that it cannot arise in any other situation. For example, in the case of Salvaa v. Gaela, 1 it was held that the writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a minor daughter even though the latter be in the custody of a third person of her free will because the parents were compelling her to marry a man against her will. In the case at bar, Christopher J. is an illegitimate child since at the time of his conception, his father, private respondent Ramon R. Villar, was married to another woman other than the child's mother. As such, pursuant to Art. 176 of the Family Code, Christopher J. is under the parental authority of his mother, the herein petitioner, who, as a consequence of such authority, is entitled to have custody of him. 2 Since, admittedly, petitioner has been deprived of her rightful custody of her child by private respondent, she is entitled to issuance of the writ ofhabeas corpus. Indeed, Rule 1021 1 makes no distinction between the case of a mother who is separated from her husband and is entitled to the custody of her child and that of a mother of an illegitimate child who, by law, is vested with sole parental authority, but is deprived of her rightful custody of her child. The fact that private respondent has recognized the minor child may be a ground for ordering him to give support to the latter, but not for giving him custody of the child. Under Art. 213 of the Family Code, "no child under seven years of age shall be separated 3 from the mother unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise." Nor is the fact that private respondent is well-off a reason for depriving petitioner of the custody of her children, especially considering that she has been able to rear and support them on her own since they were born. Petitioner is a market vendor earning from P2,000 to P3,000 per month in 1993 when the RTC decision was rendered. She augments her income by working as secretary at the Computer System Specialist, Inc. earning a monthly income of P4,500.00. She has an arrangement with her employer so that she can personally attend to her children. She works up to 8:00 o'clock in the evening to make up for time lost during the day. That she receives help from her parents and sister for the support of the three children is not a point against her. Cooperation, compassion, love and concern for every member of the family are characteristics of the close family ties that bind the Filipino family and have made it what it is.
Daisie and her children may not be enjoying a life of affluence that private respondent promises if the child lives with him. It is enough, however, that petitioner is earning a decent living and is able to support her children according to her means. The Regional Trial Court ordered private respondent to give temporary support to petitioner in the amount of P3,000.00 a month, pending the filing of an action for support, after finding that private respondent did not give any support to his three children by Daisie, except the meager amount of P500.00 a week which he stopped giving them on June 23, 1992. He is a rich man who professes love for his children. In fact he filed a motion for the execution of the decision of the Court of Appeals, alleging that he had observed his son "to be physically weak and pale because of malnutrition and deprivation of the luxury and amenities he was accustomed to when in the former custody of the respondent." He prayed that he be given the custody of the child so that he can provide him with the "proper care and education." Although the question of support is proper in a proceeding for that purpose, the grant of support in this case is justified by the fact that private respondent has expressed willingness to support the minor child. The order for payment of allowance need not be conditioned on the grant to him of custody of the child. Under Art. 204 of the Family Code, a person obliged to give support can fulfill his obligation either by paying the allowance fixed by the court or by receiving and maintaining in the family dwelling the person who is entitled to support unless, in the latter case, there is "a moral or legal obstacle thereto." In the case at bar, as has already been pointed out, Christopher J., being less than seven years of age at least at the time the case was decided by the RTC, cannot be taken from the mother's custody. Even now that the child is over seven years of age, the mother's custody over him will have to be upheld because the child categorically expressed preference to live with his mother. Under Art. 213 of the Family Code, courts must respect the "choice of the child over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit" and here it has not been shown that the mother is in any way unfit to have custody of her child. Indeed, if private respondent loves his child, he should not condition the grant of support for him on the award of his custody to him (private respondent). WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and private respondent is ORDERED to deliver the minor Christopher J. T. David to the custody of his mother, the herein petitioner, and to give him temporary support in the amount of P3,000.00, pending the fixing of the amount of support in an appropriate action. SO ORDERED.
10
Case 4: Writ of Amparo

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 182484 June 17, 2008
DANIEL MASANGKAY TAPUZ, AURORA TAPUZ-MADRIAGA, LIBERTY M. ASUNCION, LADYLYN BAMOS MADRIAGA, EVERLY TAPUZ MADRIAGA, EXCEL TAPUZ, IVAN TAPUZ AND MARIAN TIMBAS, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE ELMO DEL ROSARIO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Br. 5 Kalibo, SHERIFF NELSON DELA CRUZ, in his capacity as Sheriff of the RTC, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE stationed in Boracay Island, represented by the PNP STATION th COMMANDER, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS IN CEBU 18 DIVISION, SPOUSES GREGORIO SANSON & MA. LOURDES T. SANSON,respondents. RESOLUTION BRION, J.: Before us for the determination of sufficiency of form and substance (pursuant to Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court; Sections 1 and 5 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;1 and Sections 1 and 6 of theRule on the Writ of Habeas Data2) is the petition for certiorari and for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data filed by the above-named petitioners against the Honorable Judge Elmo del Rosario [in his capacity as presiding judge of RTC Br. 5, Kalibo], Sheriff Nelson de la Cruz [in his capacity as Sheriff of the RTC], the Philippine National Police stationed in Boracay Island, represented by the PNP Station Commander, the Honorable Court of Appeals in Cebu, 18th Division, and the spouses Gregorio Sanson and Ma. Lourdes T. Sanson, respondents. The petition and its annexes disclose the following material antecedents: The private respondents spouses Gregorio Sanson and Ma. Lourdes T. Sanson (the " private respondents"), filed with the Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga-Malay, Aklan (the "MCTC") a complaint3 dated 24 April 2006 for forcible entry and damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the petitioners Daniel Masangkay Tapuz, Aurora Tapuz-Madriaga, Liberty M. Asuncion, Ladylyn Bamos Madriaga, Everly Tapuz Madriaga, Excel Tapuz, Ivan Tapuz and Marian Timbas (the "petitioners") and other John Does numbering about 120. The private respondents alleged in their complaint that: (1) they are the registered owners under TCT No. 35813 of a 1.0093-hectare parcel of land located at Sitio Pinaungon, Balabag, Boracay, Malay, Aklan (the "disputed land"); (2) they were the disputed land's prior possessors when the petitioners - armed with bolos and carrying suspected firearms and together with unidentified persons numbering 120 - entered the disputed land by force and intimidation, without the private respondents' permission and against the objections of the private respondents' security men, and built thereon a nipa and bamboo structure. In their Answer4 dated 14 May 2006, the petitioners denied the material allegations of the complaint. They essentially claimed that: (1) they are the actual and prior possessors of the disputed land; (2) on the contrary, the private respondents are the intruders; and (3) the private respondents' certificate of title to the disputed property is spurious. They asked for the dismissal of the complaint and interposed a counterclaim for damages. The MCTC, after due proceedings, rendered on 2 January 2007 a decision5 in the private respondents' favor. It found prior possession - the key issue in forcible entry cases - in the private respondents' favor, thus: "The key that could unravel the answer to this question lies in the Amended Commissioner's Report and Sketch found on pages 245 to 248 of the records and the evidence the parties have submitted. It is shown in the Amended Commissioner's Report and Sketch that the land in question is enclosed by a concrete and cyclone wire perimeter fence in pink and green highlighter as shown in the Sketch Plan (p. 248). Said perimeter fence was constructed by the plaintiffs 14 years ago. The foregoing findings of the Commissioner in his report and sketch collaborated the claim of the plaintiffs that after they
acquired the land in question on May 27, 1993 through a Deed of Sale (Annex 'A', Affidavit of Gregorio Sanson, p. 276, rec.), they caused the construction of the perimeter fence sometime in 1993 (Affidavit of Gregorio Sanson, pp. 271-275, rec.). From the foregoing established facts, it could be safely inferred that the plaintiffs were in actual physical possession of the whole lot in question since 1993 when it was interrupted by the defendants (sic) when on January 4, 2005 claiming to (sic) the Heirs of Antonio Tapuz entered a portion of the land in question with view of inhabiting the same and building structures therein prompting plaintiff Gregorio Sanson to confront them before BSPU, Police Chief Inspector Jack L. Wanky and Barangay Captain Glenn Sacapao. As a result of their confrontation, the parties signed an Agreement (Annex 'D', Complaint p. 20) wherein they agreed to vacate the disputed portion of the land in question and agreed not to build any structures thereon. The foregoing is the prevailing situation of the parties after the incident of January 4, 2005 when the plaintiff posted security guards, however, sometime on or about 6:30 A.M. of April 19, 2006, the defendants some with bolos and one carrying a sack suspected to contain firearms with other John Does numbering about 120 persons by force and intimidation forcibly entered the premises along the road and built a nipa and bamboo structure (Annex 'E', Complaint, p. 11) inside the lot in question which incident was promptly reported to the proper authorities as shown by plaintiffs' Certification (Annex 'F', Complaint, p. 12) of the entry in the police blotter and on same date April 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Balabag, Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan but no settlement was reached as shown in their Certificate to File Action (Annex 'G', Complaint, p. 13); hence the present action. Defendants' (sic) contend in their answer that 'prior to January 4, 2005, they were already occupants of the property, being indigenous settlers of the same, under claim of ownership by open continuous, adverse possession to the exclusion of other (sic)'. (Paragraph 4, Answer, p. 25). The contention is untenable. As adverted earlier, the land in question is enclosed by a perimeter fence constructed by the plaintiffs sometime in 1993 as noted by the Commissioner in his Report and reflected in his Sketch, thus, it is safe to conclude that the plaintiffs where (sic) in actual physical possession of the land in question from 1993 up to April 19, 2006 when they were ousted therefrom by the defendants by means of force. Applying by analogy the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Molina, et al. vs. De Bacud, 19 SCRA 956, if the land were in the possession of plaintiffs from 1993 to April 19, 2006, defendants' claims to an older possession must be rejected as untenable because possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities. Defendants likewise contend that it was the plaintiffs who forcibly entered the land in question on April 18, 2006 at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon as shown in their Certification (Annex 'D', Defendants' Position Paper, p. 135, rec.). The contention is untenable for being inconsistent with their allegations made to the commissioner who constituted (sic) the land in question that they built structures on the land in question only on April 19, 2006 (Par. D.4, Commissioner's Amended Report, pp. 246 to 247), after there (sic) entry thereto on even date. Likewise, said contention is contradicted by the categorical statements of defendants' witnesses, Rowena Onag, Apolsida Umambong, Ariel Gac, Darwin Alvarez and Edgardo Pinaranda, in their Joint Affidavit (pp. 143- '144, rec.) [sic] categorically stated 'that on or about April 19, 2006, a group of armed men entered the property of our said neighbors and built plastic roofed tents. These armed men threatened to drive our said neighbors away from their homes but they refused to leave and resisted the intruding armed men'. From the foregoing, it could be safely inferred that no incident of forcible entry happened on April 18, 2006 but it was only on April 19, 2006 when the defendants overpowered by their numbers the security guards posted by the plaintiffs prior to the controversy. Likewise, defendants (sic) alleged burnt and other structures depicted in their pictures attached as annexes to their position paper were not noted and reflected in the amended report and sketch submitted by the Commissioner, hence, it could be safely inferred that these structures are built and (sic) situated outside the premises of the land in question, accordingly, they are irrelevant to the instant case and cannot be considered as evidence of their actual possession of the land in 6 question prior to April 19, 2006 ."
12
The petitioners appealed the MCTC decision to the Regional Trial Court ("RTC," Branch 6 of Kalibo, Aklan) then presided over by Judge Niovady M. Marin ("Judge Marin"). On appeal, Judge Marin granted the private respondents' motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction through an Order dated 26 February 2007, with the issuance conditioned on the private respondents' posting of a bond. 7 The writ - authorizing the immediate implementation of the MCTC decision - was actually issued by respondent Judge Elmo F. del Rosario (the "respondent Judge") on 12 March 2007 after the private respondents had complied with the imposed condition. The petitioners moved to reconsider the issuance of the writ; the private respondents, on the other hand, filed a motion for demolition. The respondent Judge subsequently denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and to Defer Enforcement of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction in an Order dated 17 May 20078. Meanwhile, the petitioners opposed the motion for demolition. 9 The respondent Judge nevertheless issued via a Special Order 10 a writ of demolition to be implemented fifteen (15) days after the Sheriff's written notice to the petitioners to voluntarily demolish their house/s to allow the private respondents to effectively take actual possession of the land. The petitioners thereafter filed on 2 August 2007 with the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, a Petition for Review11(under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) of the Permanent Mandatory Injunction and Order of Demolition of the RTC of Kalibo, Br. 6 in Civil Case No. 7990. Meanwhile, respondent Sheriff Nelson R. dela Cruz issued the Notice to Vacate and for Demolition on 19 March 2008. 12 It was against this factual backdrop that the petitioners filed the present petition last 29 April 2008. The petition contains and prays for three remedies, namely: a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court; the issuance of a writ of habeas data under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data; and finally, the issuance of the writ of amparo under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. To support the petition and the remedies prayed for, the petitioners present factual positions diametrically opposed to the MCTC's findings and legal reasons. Most importantly, the petitioners maintain their claims of prior possession of the disputed land and of intrusion into this land by the private respondents. The material factual allegations of the petition - bases as well of the petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo - read: "29. On April 29, 2006 at about 9:20 a.m. armed men sporting 12 gauge shot guns intruded into the property of the defendants [the land in dispute]. They were not in uniform. They fired their shotguns at the defendants. Later the following day at 2:00 a.m. two houses of the defendants were burned to ashes. 30. These armed men [without uniforms] removed the barbed wire fence put up by defendants to protect their property from intruders. Two of the armed men trained their shotguns at the defendants who resisted their intrusion. One of them who was identified as SAMUEL LONGNO y GEGANSO, 19 years old, single, and a resident of Binun-an, Batad, Iloilo, fired twice. 31. The armed men torched two houses of the defendants reducing them to ashes. [...] 32. These acts of TERRORISM and (heinous crime) of ARSON were reported by one of the HEIRS OF ANTONIO TAPUZ [...]. The terrorists trained their shotguns and fired at minors namely IVAN GAJISAN and MICHAEL MAGBANUA, who resisted their intrusion. Their act is a blatant violation of the law penalizing Acts of Violence against women and children, which is aggravated by the use of high-powered weapons. [] 34. That the threats to the life and security of the poor indigent and unlettered petitioners continue because the private respondents Sansons have under their employ armed men and they are influential with the police authorities owing to their financial and political clout. 35. The actual prior occupancy, as well as the ownership of the lot in dispute by defendants and the atrocities of the terrorists [introduced into the property in dispute by the plaintiffs] are attested by witnesses who are persons not related
to the defendants are therefore disinterested witnesses in the case namely: Rowena Onag, Apolsida Umambong, Ariel Gac, Darwin Alvarez and Edgardo Penarada. Likewise, the affidavit of Nemia T. Carmen is submitted to prove that the plaintiffs resorted to atrocious acts through hired men in their bid to unjustly evict the defendants. 13" The petitioners posit as well that the MCTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint for forcible entry that the private respondents 14 filed below. Citing Section 33 of The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 , they maintain that the forcible entry case in fact involves issues of title to or possession of real property or an interest therein, with the assessed value of the property involved exceeding P20,000.00; thus, the case should be originally cognizable by the RTC. Accordingly, the petitioners reason out that the RTC - to where the MCTC decision was appealed - equally has no jurisdiction to rule on the case on appeal and could not have validly issued the assailed orders. OUR RULING We find the petitions for certiorari and issuance of a writ of habeas data fatally defective, both in substance and in form. The petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo, on the other hand, is fatally defective with respect to content and substance. The Petition for Certiorari We conclude, based on the outlined material antecedents that led to the petition, that the petition for certiorari to nullify the assailed RTC orders has been filed out of time. It is not lost on us that the petitioners have a pending petition with the Court of Appeals (the "CA petition") for the review of the same RTC orders now assailed in the present petition, although the petitioners never disclosed in the body of the present petition the exact status of their pending CA petition. The CA petition, however, was filed with the Court of Appeals on 2 August 2007, which indicates to us that the assailed orders (or at the very least, the latest of the interrelated assailed orders) were received on 1 August 2007 at the latest. The present petition, on the other hand, was filed on April 29, 2008 or more than eight months from the time the CA petition was filed. Thus, the present petition is separated in point of time from the assumed receipt of the assailed RTC orders by at least eight (8) months, i.e., beyond the reglementary period of sixty (60) days15 from receipt of the assailed order or orders or from notice of the denial of a seasonably filed motion for reconsideration. We note in this regard that the petitioners' counsel stated in his attached "Certificate of Compliance with Circular #1-88 of the Supreme Court"16 ("Certificate of Compliance") that "in the meantime the RTC and the Sheriff issued a NOTICE TO VACATE AND FOR DEMOLITION not served to counsel but to the petitioners who sent photo copy of the same NOTICE to their counsel on April 18, 2008 by LBC." To guard against any insidious argument that the present petition is timely filed because of this Notice to Vacate, we feel it best to declare now that the counting of the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65 cannot start from the April 18, 2008 date cited by the petitioners' counsel. The Notice to Vacate and for Demolition is not an order that exists independently from the RTC orders assailed in this petition and in the previously filed CA petition. It is merely a notice, made in compliance with one of the assailed orders, and is thus an administrative enforcement medium that has no life of its own separately from the assailed order on which it is based. It cannot therefore be the appropriate subject of an independent petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the context of this case. The April 18, 2008 date cannot likewise be the material date for Rule 65 purposes as the above-mentioned Notice to Vacate is not even directly assailed in this petition, as the petition's Prayer patently shows. 17 Based on the same material antecedents, we find too that the petitioners have been guilty of willful and deliberate misrepresentation before this Court and, at the very least, of forum shopping. By the petitioners' own admissions, they filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (docketed as CA - G.R. SP No. 02859) for the review of the orders now also assailed in this petition, but brought the present recourse to us, allegedly because " the CA did not act on the petition up to this date and for the petitioner (sic) to seek relief in the CA would be a waste of time and would render the case moot and academic since the CA refused to resolve pending urgent motions and the Sheriff is determined to enforce a writ of demolition despite the defect of LACK OF JURISDICTION."18 Interestingly, the petitioners' counsel - while making this claim in the body of the petition - at the same time represented in his 19 Certificate of Compliance that: "x x x (e) the petitioners went up to the Court of Appeals to question the WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION copy of the petition is attached (sic);
(f) the CA initially issued a resolution denying the PETITION because it held that the ORDER TO VACATE AND FOR DEMOLITION OF THE HOMES OF PETITIONERS is not capable of being the subject of a PETITION FOR RELIEF , copy of the resolution of the CA is attached hereto; (underscoring supplied) (g) Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on August 7, 2007 but up to this date the same had not been resolved copy of the MR is attached (sic). x x x" The difference between the above representations on what transpired at the appellate court level is replete with significance regarding the petitioners' intentions. We discern -- from the petitioners' act of misrepresenting in the body of their petition that " the CA did not act on the petition up to this date" while stating the real Court of Appeals action in the Certification of Compliance -- the intent to hide the real state of the remedies the petitioners sought below in order to mislead us into action on the RTC orders without frontally considering the action that the Court of Appeals had already undertaken. At the very least, the petitioners are obviously seeking to obtain from us, via the present petition, the same relief that it could not wait for from the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 02859. The petitioners' act of seeking against the same parties the nullification of the same RTC orders before the appellate court and before us at the same time, although made through different mediums that are both improperly used, constitutes willful and deliberate forum shopping that can sufficiently serve as basis for the summary dismissal of the petition under the combined application of the fourth and penultimate paragraphs of Section 3, Rule 46; Section 5, Rule 7; Section 1, Rule 65; and Rule 56, all of the Revised Rules of Court. That a wrong remedy may have been used with the Court of Appeals and possibly with us will not save the petitioner from a forum-shopping violation where there is identity of parties, involving the same assailed interlocutory orders, with the recourses existing side by side at the same time. To restate the prevailing rules, "forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping may be resorted to by any party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in another, other than by appeal or a special civil action for certiorari. Forum shopping trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice and congest court dockets. Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against it is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute direct contempt."20 Additionally, the required verification and certification of non-forum shopping is defective as one (1) of the seven (7) petitioners Ivan Tapuz - did not sign, in violation of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7; Section 3, Rule 46; Section 1, Rule 65; all in relation with Rule 56 of the Revised Rules of Court. Of those who signed, only five (5) exhibited their postal identification cards with the Notary Public. In any event, we find the present petition for certiorari, on its face and on the basis of the supporting attachments, to be devoid of merit. The MCTC correctly assumed jurisdiction over the private respondents' complaint, which specifically alleged a cause for forcible entry and not - as petitioners may have misread or misappreciated - a case involving title to or possession of realty or an interest therein. Under Section 33, par. 2 of The Judiciary Reorganization Act, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691, exclusive jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases lies with the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. These first-level courts have had jurisdiction over these cases - called accion interdictal - even before the R.A. 7691 amendment, based on the issue of pure physical possession (as opposed to the right of possession). This jurisdiction is regardless of the assessed value of the property involved; the law established no distinctions based on the assessed value of the property forced into or unlawfully detained. Separately from accion interdictalare accion publiciana for the recovery of the right of 21 possession as a plenary action, and accion reivindicacion for the recovery of ownership. Apparently, these latter actions are the ones the petitioners refer to when they cite Section 33, par. 3, in relation with Section 19, par. 2 of The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, in which jurisdiction may either be with the first-level courts or the regional trial courts,depending on the assessed value of the realty subject of the litigation. As the complaint at the MCTC was patently for forcible entry, that court committed no jurisdictional error correctible by certiorari under the present petition. In sum, the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for the cited formal deficiencies, for violation of the non-forum shopping rule, for having been filed out of time, and for substantive deficiencies. The Writ of Amparo
To start off with the basics, the writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it 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. Consequently, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo - in line with the extraordinary character of the writ and the reasonable certainty that its issuance demands - requires that every petition for the issuance of the Pwrit must be supported by justifying allegations of fact, to wit: "(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner; (b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation; (c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits; (d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report ; (e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and (f) The relief prayed for. The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs."22 The writ shall issue if the Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie existence of the ultimate facts determinable from the supporting affidavits that detail the circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to or violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party was or is being committed. The issuance of the writ of amparo in the present case is anchored on the factual allegations heretofore quoted,23that are essentially repeated in paragraph 54 of the petition. These allegations are supported by the following documents: "(a) Joint Affidavit dated 23 May 2006 of Rowena B. Onag, Apolsida Umambong, Ariel Gac, Darwin Alvarez and Edgardo Pinaranda, supporting the factual positions of the petitioners, id., petitioners' prior possession, private respondents' intrusion and the illegal acts committed by the private respondents and their security guards on 19 April 2006; (b) Unsubscribed Affidavit of Nemia Carmen y Tapuz, alleging the illegal acts (firing of guns, etc.) committed by a security guard against minors - descendants of Antonio Tapuz; (c) Unsubscribed Affidavit of Melanie Tapuz y Samindao, essentially corroborating Nemia's affidavit; (d) Certification dated 23 April 2006 issued by Police Officer Jackson Jauod regarding the incident of petitioners' intrusion into the disputed land; (e) Certification dated 27 April 2006 issued by Police Officer Allan R. Otis, narrating the altercation between the Tapuz family and the security guards of the private respondents, including the gun-poking and shooting incident involving one of the security guards; (f) Certification issued by Police Officer Christopher R. Mendoza, narrating that a house owned by Josiel Tapuz, Jr., rented by a certain Jorge Buenavente, was accidentally burned by a fire."
16
On the whole, what is clear from these statements - both sworn and unsworn - is the overriding involvement of property issues as the petition traces its roots to questions of physical possession of the property disputed by the private parties. If at all, issues relating to the right to life or to liberty can hardly be discerned except to the extent that the occurrence of past violence has been alleged. The right to security, on the other hand, is alleged only to the extent of the threats and harassments implied from the presence of "armed men bare to the waist" and the alleged pointing and firing of weapons. Notably, none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show that the threat to the rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or is continuing. A closer look at the statements shows that at least two of them - the statements of Nemia Carreon y Tapuz and Melanie Tapuz are practically identical and unsworn. The Certification by Police Officer Jackson Jauod, on the other hand, simply narrates what had been reported by one Danny Tapuz y Masangkay, and even mentions that the burning of two residential houses was "accidental." As against these allegations are the cited MCTC factual findings in its decision in the forcible entry case which rejected all the petitioners' factual claims. These findings are significantly complete and detailed, as they were made under a full-blown judicial process, i.e., after examination and evaluation of the contending parties' positions, evidence and arguments and based on the report of a court-appointed commissioner. We preliminarily examine these conflicting factual positions under the backdrop of a dispute (with incidents giving rise to allegations of violence or threat thereof) that was brought to and ruled upon by the MCTC; subsequently brought to the RTC on an appeal that is still pending; still much later brought to the appellate court without conclusive results; and then brought to us on interlocutory incidents involving a plea for the issuance of the writ of amparo that, if decided as the petitioners advocate, may render the pending RTC appeal moot. Under these legal and factual situations, we are far from satisfied with the prima facie existence of the ultimate facts that would justify the issuance of a writ of amparo. Rather than acts of terrorism that pose a continuing threat to the persons of the petitioners, the violent incidents alleged appear to us to be purely property-related and focused on the disputed land. Thus, if the petitioners wish to seek redress and hold the alleged perpetrators criminally accountable, the remedy may lie more in the realm of ordinary criminal prosecution rather than on the use of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of amparo. Nor do we believe it appropriate at this time to disturb the MCTC findings, as our action may carry the unintended effect, not only of reversing the MCTC ruling independently of the appeal to the RTC that is now in place, but also of nullifying the ongoing appeal process. Such effect, though unintended, will obviously wreak havoc on the orderly administration of justice, an overriding goal that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo does not intend to weaken or negate. Separately from these considerations, we cannot fail but consider too at this point the indicators, clear and patent to us, that the petitioners' present recourse via the remedy of the writ of amparo is a mere subterfuge to negate the assailed orders that the petitioners sought and failed to nullify before the appellate court because of the use of an improper remedial measure. We discern this from the petitioners' misrepresentations pointed out above; from their obvious act of forum shopping; and from the recourse itself to the extraordinary remedies of the writs of certiorari and amparo based on grounds that are far from forthright and sufficiently compelling. To be sure, when recourses in the ordinary course of law fail because of deficient legal representation or the use of improper remedial measures, neither the writ of certiorari nor that of amparo - extraordinary though they may be - will suffice to serve as a curative substitute. The writ of amparo, particularly, should not issue when applied for as a substitute for the appeal or certiorari process, or when it will inordinately interfere with these processes - the situation obtaining in the present case. While we say all these, we note too that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides for rules on the institution of separate 24 25 actions, for the effect of earlier-filed criminal actions, and for the consolidation of petitions for the issuance of a writ of amparo 26 with a subsequently filed criminal and civil action. These rules were adopted to promote an orderly procedure for dealing with petitions for the issuance of the writ of amparo when the parties resort to other parallel recourses. Where, as in this case, there is an ongoing civil process dealing directly with the possessory dispute and the reported acts of violence and harassment, we see no point in separately and directly intervening through a writ of amparo in the absence of any clear prima facie showing that the right to life, liberty or security - the personalconcern that the writ is intended to protect - is immediately in danger or threatened, or that the danger or threat is continuing. We see no legal bar, however, to an application for the issuance of the writ, in a proper case, by motion in a pending case on appeal or on certiorari, applying by analogy the provisions on the coexistence of the writ with a separately filed criminal case.
17
The Writ of Habeas Data Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data: "(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent; (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; (c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information; (d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information, if known; (e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the act complained of; and (f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable." Support for the habeas data aspect of the present petition only alleges that: "1. [ ] Similarly, a petition for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA is prayed for so that the PNP may release the report on the burning of the homes of the petitioners and the acts of violence employed against them by the private respondents, furnishing the Court and the petitioners with copy of the same; [] 66. Petitioners apply for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA commanding the Philippine National Police [PNP] to produce the police report pertaining to the burning of the houses of the petitioners in the land in dispute and likewise the investigation report if an investigation was conducted by the PNP." These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data requires as a minimum, thus rendering the petition fatally deficient. Specifically, we see no concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security. The petition likewise has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any need for information under the control of police authorities other than those it has already set forth as integral annexes. The necessity or justification for the issuance of the writ, based on the insufficiency of previous efforts made to secure information, has not also been shown. In sum, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is nothing more than the "fishing expedition" that this Court - in the course of drafting the Rule on habeas data - had in mind in defining what the purpose of a writ of habeas data is not. In these lights, the outright denial of the petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas data is fully in order. WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DISMISS the present petition OUTRIGHT for deficiencies of form and substance patent from its body and attachments. SO ORDERED.
18
Case 5: Writ of Habeas Data

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 184769 October 5, 2010
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ALEXANDER S. DEYTO and RUBEN A. SAPITULA, Petitioners, vs. ROSARIO GOPEZ LIM, Respondent. DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: The Court is once again confronted with an opportunity to define the evolving metes and bounds of the writ of habeas data. May an employee invoke the remedies available under such writ where an employer decides to transfer her workplace on the basis of copies of an anonymous letter posted therein imputing to her disloyalty to the company and calling for her to leave, which imputat ion it investigated but fails to inform her of the details thereof? Rosario G. Lim (respondent), also known as Cherry Lim, is an administrative clerk at the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). On June 4, 2008, an anonymous letter was posted at the door of the Metering Office of the Administration building of MERALCO Plaridel, Bulacan Sector, at which respondent is assigned, denouncing respondent. The letter reads: Cherry Lim: MATAPOS MONG LAMUNIN LAHAT NG BIYAYA NG MERALCO, NGAYON NAMAN AY GUSTO MONG PALAMON ANG BUONG 1 KUMPANYA SA MGA BUWAYA NG GOBYERNO. KAPAL NG MUKHA MO, LUMAYAS KA RITO, WALANG UTANG NA LOOB. Copies of the letter were also inserted in the lockers of MERALCO linesmen. Informed about it, respondent reported the matter on June 5, 2008 to the Plaridel Station of the Philippine National Police.2 By Memorandum3 dated July 4, 2008, petitioner Alexander Deyto, Head of MERALCOs Human Resource Staffing, directed the transfer of respondent to MERALCOs Alabang Sector in Muntinlupa as "A/F OTMS Clerk," effective July 18, 2008 in light of the receipt of " reports that there were accusations and threats directed against [her] from unknown individuals and which could possibly compromise [her] safety and security." Respondent, by letter of July 10, 2008 addressed to petitioner Ruben A. Sapitula, Vice-President and Head of MERALCOs Human Resource Administration, appealed her transfer and requested for a dialogue so she could voice her concerns and misgivings on the matter, claiming that the "punitive" nature of the transfer amounted to a denial of due process. Citing the grueling travel from her residence in Pampanga to Alabang and back entails, and violation of the provisions on job security of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), respondent expressed her thoughts on the alleged threats to her security in this wise: xxxx I feel that it would have been better . . . if you could have intimated to me the nature of the alleged accusations and threats so that at least I could have found out if these are credible or even serious. But as you stated, these came from unknown individuals and the way they were handled, it appears that the veracity of these accusations and threats to be [sic] highly suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if they existed at all.
19
Assuming for the sake of argument only, that the alleged threats exist as the management apparently believe, then my transfer to an unfamiliar place and environment which will make me a "sitting duck" so to speak, seems to betray the real intent of management which is contrary to its expressed concern on my security and safety . . . Thus, it made me think twice on the rationale for managements initiated transfer. Reflecting further, it appears to me that instead of the management supposedly extending 4 favor to me, the net result and effect of management action would be a punitive one. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) Respondent thus requested for the deferment of the implementation of her transfer pending resolution of the issues she raised. No response to her request having been received, respondent filed a petition 5 for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan, docketed as SP. Proc. No. 213-M-2008. By respondents allegation, petitioners unlawful act and omission consisting of their continued failure and refusalto provide her with details or information about the alleged report which MERALCO purportedly receivedconcerning threats to her safety and security amount to a violation of her right to privacy in life, liberty and security, correctible by habeas data. Respondent thus prayed for the issuance of a writ commanding petitioners to file a written return containing the following: a) a full disclosure of the data or information about respondent in relation to the report purportedly received by petitioners on the alleged threat to her safety and security; the nature of such data and the purpose for its collection; b) the measures taken by petitioners to ensure the confidentiality of such data or information; and c) the currency and accuracy of such data or information obtained. Additionally, respondent prayed for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining petitioners from effecting her transfer to the MERALCO Alabang Sector. By Order6 of August 29, 2008, Branch 7 of the Bulacan RTC directed petitioners to file their verified written return. And by Order of September 5, 2008, the trial court granted respondents application for a TRO. Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the petition and recall of the TRO on the grounds that, inter alia, resort to a petition for writ of habeas data was not in order; and the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the case which properly belongs to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).7 By Decision8 of September 22, 2008, the trial court granted the prayers of respondent including the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction directing petitioners to desist from implementing respondents transfer until such time that petition ers comply with the disclosures required. The trial court justified its ruling by declaring that, inter alia, recourse to a writ of habeas data should extend not only to victims of extra-legal killings and political activists but also to ordinary citizens, like respondent whose rights to life and security are jeopardized by petitioners refusal to provide her with information or data on the reported threats to her person. Hence, the present petition for review under Rule 45 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data9 contending that 1) the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the case and cannot restrain MERALCOs prerogative as employer to transfer the place of work of its employees, and 2) the issuance of the writ is outside the parameters expressly set forth in the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data.101avvphi1 Maintaining that the RTC has no jurisdiction over what they contend is clearly a labor dispute, petitioners argue that "although ingeniously crafted as a petition for habeas data, respondent is essentially questioning the transfer of her place of work by her employer"11 and the terms and conditions of her employment which arise from an employer-employee relationship over which the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters under Article 217 of the Labor Code have jurisdiction. Petitioners thus maintain that the RTC had no authority to restrain the implementation of the Memorandum transferring respondents place of work which is purely a management prerogative, and that OCA-Circular No. 79-200312 expressly prohibits the issuance of TROs or injunctive writs in labor-related cases.
20
Petitioners go on to point out that the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data directs the issuance of the writ only against public officials or employees, or private individuals or entities engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding an aggrieved partys person, family or home; and that MERALCO (or its officers) is clearly not engaged in such activities. The petition is impressed with merit. Respondents plea that she be spared from complying with MERALCOs Memorandum directing her reassignment to the Alabang Sector, under the guise of a quest for information or data allegedly in possession of petitioners, does not fall within the province of a writ of habeas data. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data provides: Section 1. Habeas Data. 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. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) The habeas data rule, in general, 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 ones right to the truth and to informatio nal privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a persons right to life, liberty and security against abuse in this age of information technology. It bears reiteration that like the writ of amparo, habeas 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. Its intent is to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security as a remedy independently from those provided under prevailing Rules.13 Castillo v. Cruz14 underscores the emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. del Rosario15 that 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.16 Employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause of the Constitution. 17 It is evident that respondents reservations on the real reasons for her transfer - a legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of ones employment - are what prompted her to adopt the extraordinary remedy of habeas data. Jurisdiction over such concerns is inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters. In another vein, there is no showing from the facts presented that petitioners committed any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of respondents right to privacy vis-a-vis the right to life, liberty or security. To argue that petitioners refusal to disclose the contents of reports allegedly received on the threats to respondents safety amounts to a violation of her right to privacy is at best specu lative. Respondent in fact trivializes these threats and accusations from unknown individuals in her earlier-quoted portion of her July 10, 2008 letter as "highly suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if they existed at all."18 And she even suspects that her transfer to another place of work "betray[s] the real intent of management]" and could be a "punitive move." Her posture unwittingly concedes that the issue is labor-related. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed September 22, 2008 Decision of the Bulacan RTC, Branch 7 in SP. Proc. No. 213M-2008 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SP. Proc. No. 213-M-2008 is, accordingly, DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED.
21
Case 6: Change of Name

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 189476 February 2, 2011
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO (A.K.A. JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG), Respondent. DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: Born in Makati on September 9, 1972, Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo (respondent) is the son of Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng who, as respondents certificate of live birth1shows, contracted marriage on March 26, 1972. Claiming, however, that his parents were never legally married, respondent filed on July 22, 2008 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a Petition to change his name to Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng. The petition, docketed as SPP No. Q0863058, was entitled "IN RE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAMEOF JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG MAGPAYO TO JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG." In support of his petition, respondent submitted a certification from the National Statistics Office stating that his mother Anna Dominique "does not appear in [its] National Indices of Marriage." 2 Respondent also submitted his academic records from elementary up to college3 showing that he carried the surname "Coseteng," and the birth certificate of his child where "Coseteng" appears as his surname.4 In the 1998, 2001 and 2004 Elections, respondent ran and was elected as Councilor of Quezon Citys 3rd District using the name "JULIAN M.L. COSETENG."5 On order of Branch 77 of the Quezon City RTC,6 respondent amended his petition by alleging therein compliance with the 3-year residency requirement under Section 2, Rule 103] of the Rules of Court.7 The notice setting the petition for hearing on November 20, 2008 was published in the newspaper Broadside in its issues of October 31-November 6, 2008, November 7-13, 2008, and November 14-20, 2008.8 And a copy of the notice was furnished the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). No opposition to the petition having been filed, an order of general default was entered by the trial court which then allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte.9 By Decision of January 8, 2009,10 the trial court granted respondents petition and directed the Civil Registrar ofMakati City to: 1. Delete the entry "March 26, 1972" in Item 24 for "DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF PARTIES" [in herein respondents Certificate of live Birth]; 2. Correct the entry "MAGPAYO" in the space for the Last Name of the [respondent] to "COSETENG"; 3. Delete the entry "COSETENG" in the space for Middle Name of the [respondent]; and 4. Delete the entry "Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr." in the space for FATHER of the [respondent ] (emphasis and underscoring supplied; capitalization in the original)
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the trial court by Order of July 2, 11 2009, hence, it, thru the OSG, lodged the present petition for review to the Court on pure question of law. The Republic assails the decision in this wise: I. . . . THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAMEINVOLVES THE CHANGE OF [RESPONDENTS] CIVIL STATUS FROM LEGITIMATE TO ILLEGITIMATE AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH APPROPRIATE ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS II. THE TRIAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT DIRECTED THE DELETION OF THE NAME OF RESPONDENTS 12 FATHER FROM HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) The Republic contends that the deletion of the entry on the date and place of marriage of respondents parents from his birth certificate has the effect of changing his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, hence, any change in civil status of a person must be effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding. 13 The Republic adds that by ordering the deletion of respondents parents date of marriage and the name of respondents father from 14 the entries in respondents birth certificate, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction, such order not being in accord with respondents prayer reading: WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court issue an orderallowing the change of name of petitioner from JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG MAGPAYO to JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG, and that the Honorable Court order the Local Civil Registrar and all other relevant government agencies to reflect the said change of name in their records. Petitioner prays for other reliefs deemed proper under the premises. 15 (underscoring supplied) Respondent counters that the proceeding before the trial court was adversarial in nature. He cites the serving of copies of the petition and its annexes upon the Civil Registrar of Makati, the Civil Registrar General, and the OSG; the posting of copies of the notice of hearing in at least four public places at least ten days before the hearing; the delegation to the OSG by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to appear on behalf of the Republic; the publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks; and the fact that no oppositors appeared on the scheduled hearing.16 The petition is impressed with merit. A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and meritorious grounds including (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public 17 interest. Respondents reason for changing his name cannot be considered as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds, however. The present petition must be differentiated from Alfon v. Republic of the Philippines. In Alfon, the Court allowed the therein petitioner, Estrella Alfon, to use the name that she had been known since childhood in order to avoid confusion. Alfon did not deny her legitimacy, however. She merely sought to use the surname of her mother which she had been using since childhood. Ruling in her favor, the Court held that she was lawfully entitled to use her mothers surname, adding that the avoidance of confusion was justification enough to allow her to do so. In the present case, however, respondent denies his legitimacy. The change being sought in respondents petition goes so far as to affect his legal status in relation to his parents. It see ks to change his legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then would not suffice to grant respondents supplication. Labayo-Rowe v. Republic19 categorically holds that "changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings . . ." Since respondents desired change affects his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, Rule 108 applies. It reads:
18
SECTION 1. Who may file petition.Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the [RTC] of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. xxxx SEC. 3. Parties.When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar andall persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding. SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns ones civil status should be filed in the civil registry in which the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected that of Makati in the present case, and "all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby" should be made parties to the proceeding. As earlier stated, however, the petition of respondent was filed not in Makati where his birth certificate was registered but in Quezon City. And as the above-mentioned title of the petition filed by respondent before the RTC shows, neither the civil registrar of Makati nor his father and mother were made parties thereto. Respondent nevertheless cites Republic v. Capote20 in support of his claim that his change of name was effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding. Republic v. Belmonte,21 illuminates, however: The procedure recited in Rule 103] regarding change of name and in Rule 108 concerning the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry are separate and distinct. They may not be substituted one for the other for the sole purpose of expediency. To hold otherwise would render nugatory the provisions of the Rules of Court allowing the change of ones name or the correction of e ntries in the civil registry only upon meritorious grounds. . . . (emphasis, capitalization and underscoring supplied) Even assuming arguendo that respondent had simultaneously availed of these two statutory remedies, respondent cannot be said to have sufficiently complied with Rule 108. For, as reflected above, aside from improper venue, he failed to implead the civil registrar of Makati and all affected parties as respondents in the case. Republic v. Labrador22 mandates that "a petition for a substantial correction or change of entries in the civil registry should have as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby." It cannot be gainsaid that change of status of a child in relation to his parents is a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil registry. Labayo-Rowe highlights the necessity of impleading indispensable parties in a petition which involves substantial and controversial alterations. In that case, the therein petitioner Emperatriz Labayo-Rowe (Emperatriz) filed a petition for the correction of entries in the birth certificates of her children, Vicente Miclat, Jr. and Victoria Miclat, in the Civil Registry of San Fernando, Pampanga. Emperatriz alleged that her name appearing in the birth certificates is Beatriz, which is her nickname, but her full name is Emperatriz; and her civil status appearing in the birth certificate of her daughter Victoria as "married" on "1953 Bulan" are erroneous because she was not married to Vicente Miclat who was the one who furnished the data in said birth certificate. The trial court found merit in Emperatrizs petition and accordingly directed the local civil registrar to change her name appear ing in her childrens birth certificates from Beatriz to Emperatriz; and to correct her civil status in Victorias birth certificat e from "married" to "single" and the date and place of marriage to "no marriage." On petition before this Court after the Court of Appeals found that the order of the trial court involved a question of law, the Court nullified the trial courts order directing the change of Emperatriz civil status and the filiation of her child Victoria in light of the following observations:
23
x x x x Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General, all other indispensable parties should have been maderespondents. They include not only the declared father of the child but the child as well, together with the paternal grandparents, if any, as their hereditary rights would be adversely affected thereby. All other persons who may be affected by the change should be notified or represented. The truth is best ascertained under an adversary system of justice. The right of the child Victoria to inherit from her parents would be substantially impaired if her status would be changed from "legitimate" to "illegitimate." Moreover, she would be exposed to humiliation and embarrassment resulting from the stigma of an illegitimate filiation that she will bear thereafter. The fact that the notice of hearing of the petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken. Rule 108, like all the other provisions of the Rules of Court, was promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making authority under Section 13, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, which directs that such rules "shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights." If Rule 108 were to be extended beyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and controversial alterations concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, without observing the proper proceedings as earlier mentioned, said rule would thereby become an unconstitutional exercise which would tend to increase or modify substantive rights. This situation is not 24 contemplated under Article 412 of the Civil Code. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) As for the requirement of notice and publication, Rule 108 provides: SEC. 4. Notice and publication.Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. SEC. 5. Opposition.The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) A reading of these related provisions readily shows that Rule 108 clearly mandates two sets of notices to different "potential oppositors." The first notice is that given to the "persons named in the petition" and the second (which is through publication) is that given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties, such as creditors. That two sets of notices are mandated under the above-quoted Section 4 is validated by the subsequent Section 5, also above-quoted, which provides for two periods (for the two types of "potential oppositors") within which to file an opposition (15 days from notice or from the last date of publication). This is the overriding principle laid down in Barco v. Court of Appeals. 25 In that case, Nadina Maravilla (Nadina) filed a petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate of her daughter June from June Salvacion Maravilla to June Salvacion "Gustilo," Armando Gustilo being, according to Nadina, her daughters real father. Gustilo in fact file d before the trial court a "CONSTANCIA" wherein he acknowledged June as his daughter. The trial court granted the petition. After Gustilo died, his son Jose Vicente Gustilo filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of the Order of the trial court granting the change of Junes family name to Gustilo. Milagros Barco (Barco), natural guardian of her minor daughter Mary Joy Ann Gustilo, filed before the appellate court a motion for intervention, alleging that Mary Joy had a legal interest in the annulment of the trial courts Order as Mary Joy was, by Barcos claim, also fathered by Gustilo. The appellate court dismissed the petition for annulment and complaint-in-intervention. On appeal by Barco, this Court ruled that she should have been impleaded in Nadinas petition for correction of entries of the birth certificate of Mary Joy. But since a petitioner, like Nadina, is not expected to exhaustively identify all the affected parties, the subsequent publication of the notice cured the omission of Barco as a party to the case. Thus the Court explained: Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of Rule 108. 1awphi1 Her interest was affected by the petition for correction, as any judicial determination that June was the daughter of Armando would affect her wards share in the estate of her father. It cannot be established whether Nadina knew of Mary Joys existence at the time she filed the petition for correctio n. Indeed, doubt may always be cast as to whether a petitioner under Rule 108 would know of all the parties whose interests may be
affected by the granting of a petition. For example, a petitioner cannot be presumed to be aware of all the legitimate or illegitimate offsprings of his/her spouse or paramour. x x x x. xxxx The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision would cover even parties who should have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108 but were inadvertently left out. x x x x.26 (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) Meanwhile, in Republic v. Kho,27 Carlito Kho (Carlito) and his siblings named the civil registrar as the sole respondent in the petition they filed for the correction of entries in their respective birth certificates in the civil registry of Butuan City, and correction of entries in the birth certificates of Carlitos minor children. Carlito and his siblings requested the correction in their birth certi ficates of the citizenship of their mother Epifania to "Filipino," instead of "Chinese," and the deletion of the word "married" opposite the phrase "Date of marriage of parents" because their parents Juan and Epifania were not married. And Carlito requested the correct ion in the birth certificates of their children of his and his wifes date of marriage to reflec t the actual date of their marriage as appearing in their marriage certificate. In the course of the hearing of the petition, Carlito also sought the correction of the name of his wife from Maribel to "Marivel." The Khos mother Epifania took the witness stand where she declared that she was not married to Juan who died before the filing of the Khos petition. The trial court granted the petition. On the issue of whether the failure to implead Marivel and the Khos parents rendered the trial of the petition short of the required adversary proceedings and the trial courts judgment void, this Court held that when all the procedural requirements under Ru le 108 are followed, the publication of the notice of hearing cures the failure to implead an indispensable party. In so ruling, the Court noted that the affected parties were already notified of the proceedings in the case since the petitioner-siblings Khos were the ones who initiated the petition respecting their prayer for correction of their citizenship, and Carlito respecting the actual date of his marriage to his wife; and, with respect to the Khos petition for change of their civil status from legitimate to illegitimat e, their mother Epifania herself took the witness stand declaring that she was not married to their father. What is clear then in Barco and Kho is the mandatory directive under Section 3 of Rule 108 to implead the civil registrar and the parties who would naturally and legally be affected by the grant of a petition for correction or cancellation of entries. Nonimpleading, however, as party-respondent of one who is inadvertently left out or is not established to be known by the petitioner to be affected by the grant of the petition or actually participates in the proceeding is notified through publication. IN FINE, when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is mandated. WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, GRANTED. The January 8, 2009 Decision of Branch 77 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in SP Proc. No. Q-0863058 is NULLIFIED. SO ORDERED.
26
Case 7: Cancellation/Correction of Entries

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 186027 December 8, 2010
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MERLYN MERCADERA through her Attorney-in-Fact, EVELYN M. OGA, Respondent. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: This petition for review on certiorari assails the December 9, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA G.R. CV No. 00568MIN, which affirmed the September 28, 2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 8 (RTC), in a petition for correction of entries, docketed as Special Proceedings No. R-3427 (SP No. R-3427), filed by respondent Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera) under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The Factual and Procedural Antecedents On June 6, 2005, Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera), represented by her sister and duly constituted Attorney-in-Fact, Evelyn M. Oga (Oga), sought the correction of her given name as it appeared in her Certificate of Live Birth - fromMarilyn L. Mercadera to Merlyn L. Mercadera before the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City pursuant to Republic Act No. 9048 (R.A. No. 9048).2 Under R.A. No. 9048, the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general, as the case may be, is now authorized to effect the change of first name or nickname and the correction of clerical or typographical errors in civil registry entries. "Under said law, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with administrative officers. The law now excludes the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied"3 and removes "correction or changing of clerical errors in entries of the civil register from the ambit of Rule 108." Hence, what is left for the scope of operation of the rules are substantial changes and corrections in entries of the civil register.4 The Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City, however, refused to effect the correction unless a court order was obtained "because the Civil Registrar therein is not yet equipped with a permanent appointment before he can validly act on petitions for 5 corrections filed before their office as mandated by Republic Act 9048." Mercadera was then constrained to file a Petition For Correction of Some Entries as Appearing in the Certificate of Live Birth under Rule 108 before the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City (RTC). The petition was docketed as Special Proceedings No. R-3427 (SP No. R-3427). Section 2 of Rule 108 reads: SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o)changes of name. [Underscoring supplied] Upon receipt of the petition for correction of entry, the RTC issued an order, dated June 10, 2005, which reads:
27
Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, notice is hereby given that the hearing of said petition is set on JULY 26, 2005 at 8:30 oclock in the morning, at the Session Hall of Branch 8, this Court, Bulwagan ng Katarungan, Dipolog City, on which d ate, time and place, anyone appearing to contest the petition shall state in writing his grounds there[for], serving a copy thereof to the petitioner and likewise file copies with this Court on or before the said date of hearing. Let this order be published at the expense of petitioner once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper edited and published in Dipolog City and of general circulation therein, the City of Dapitan and the province of Zamboanga del Norte, and copies hereof be furnished to the Office of the Solicitor General of (sic) 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila, the City Civil Registrar of Dipolog, and posted on the bulletin boards of the City Hall of Dipolog, the Provincial Capitol Building, and of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance for the Republic of the Philippines and deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor to assist in the case only on the very day of the hearing. This prompted the court to reset the hearing on September 5, 2005. On said day, there being no opposition, counsel for Mercadera moved for leave of court to present evidence ex parte. Without any objection from the City Prosecutor, the trial court designated the branch clerk of court to receive evidence for Mercadera. On September 15, 2005, the testimony of Oga and several photocopies of documents were formally offered and marked as evidence to prove that Mercadera never used the name "Marilyn" in any of her public or private transactions. On September 26, 2005, the RTC issued an order6 admitting Exhibits "A" to "I"7 and their submarkings, as relevant to the resolution of the case. The following facts were gathered from documentary evidence and the oral testimony of Oga, as reported by the lower court: Petitioner Merlyn M. Mercadera was born on August 19, 1970 at Dipolog City. She is the daughter of spouses Tirso U. Mercadera and Norma C. Lacquiao. The fact of her birth was reported to the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Dipolog City on September 8, 1970. It was recorded on page 68, book no. 9, in the Registry of Births of said civil registry. In the certification of birth dated May 9, 2005 issued by the same registry, her given name appears as Marilyn and not Merlyn (Exhibit "C"). On September 29, 1979, petitioner was baptized according to the rites and ceremonies of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. As reflected in her certificate of baptism issued by said church, she was baptized by the name Merlyn L. Mercadera (Exhibit "D"). In her elementary diploma issued by the Paaralang Sentral ng Estaka, Dipolog City; her high school diploma issued by the Zamboanga del Norte School of Arts and Trades, Dipolog City; and college diploma issued by the Silliman University, Dumaguete City, where she earned the degree of Bachelor of Secondary Education, uniformly show her name as Merlyn L. Mercadera (Exhibits "E", "F", and "G"). Presently, she is working in U.P. Mindanao, Buhangin, Davao City. Her certificate of membership issued by the Government Service Insurance System also bears his [sic] complete name as Merlyn Lacquiao Mercadera (Exhibit "H"). When she secured an authenticated copy of her certificate of live birth from the National Statistics Office, she discovered that her given name as registered is Marilyn and not Merlyn; hence, this petition. In its September 28, 2005 Decision, the RTC granted Mercaderas petition and directed the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Dipolog City to correct her name appearing in her certificate of live birth, Marilyn Lacquiao Mercadera, to MERLYN Lacquiao Mercadera. Specifically, the dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Dipolog City is hereby directed to correct the given name of petitioner appearing in her certificate of live birth, from Marilyn Lacquiao Mercadera to MERLYN Lacquiao Mercadera. In a four-page decision, the RTC ruled that the documentary evidence presented by Mercadera sufficiently supported the circumstances alleged in her petition. Considering that she had used "Merlyn" as her given name since childhood until she discovered the discrepancy in her Certificate of Live Birth, the RTC was convinced that the correction was justified.
8
The OSG timely interposed an appeal praying for the reversal and setting aside of the RTC decision. It mainly anchored its appeal on the availment of Mercadera of the remedy and procedure under Rule 108. In its Brief 9 filed with the CA, the OSG argued that the lower court erred (1) in granting the prayer for change of name in a petition for correction of entries; and (2) in admitting the photocopies of documentary evidence and hearsay testimony of Oga. For the OSG, the correction in the spelling of Mercaderas given name might seem innocuous enough to grant but "it is in truth a material correction as it would modify or increase substantive rights." 10 What the lower court actually allowed was a change of Mercaderas given name, which would have been proper had she filed a petition under Rule 103 and proved any of the grounds 11 therefor. The lower court, "may not substitute one for the other for purposes of expediency." Further, because Mercadera failed to invoke a specific ground recognized by the Rules, the lower courts order in effect allowed the change of ones name in the c ivil registry without basis. The CA was not persuaded. In its December 9, 2008 Decision, 12 the appellate court affirmed the questioned RTC Order in CA-G.R. CV No. 00568-MIN. The CA assessed the controversy in this wise: Appellants insistence that the petition should have been filed under Rule 103 and not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is off the mark. This Court does not entertain any doubt that the petition before the trial court was one for the correction on an entry in petitioners Certificate of Live Birth and not one in which she sought to change her name. In Co v. Civil Register of Manila, G.R. No. 138496, February 23, 2004, the High Court reiterated the distinction between the phrases "to correct" and "to change." Said the High Court: To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from." To change means "to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute. Article 412 of the New Civil Code does not qualify as to the kind of entry to be changed or corrected or distinguished on the basis of the effect that the correction or change may be. Such entries include not only those clerical in nature but also substantial errors. After all, the role of the Court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is to ascertain the truths about the facts recorded therein. That appellee sought to correct an entry and not to change her name is patent to the Court from the allegations in her petition, specifically, paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof xxxx Anent the RTCs error in admitting the photocopies of Mercaderas documentary evidence and in vesting probative value to Oga s testimony, the CA cited the well-established rule that "evidence not objected to may be admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment."13 On March 6, 2009, the OSG filed the present petition. On behalf of Mercadera, the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) filed its Comment14 on July 3, 2009. The OSG declined to file a reply claiming that its petition already contained an exhaustive discussion on the following assigned errors:15 I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN GRANTING THE CHANGE IN RESPONDENTS NAME UNDER RULE 103. II THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN CONSIDERING SECONDARY EVIDENCE. Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code.16 This rule provides the procedure for an independent special proceeding in court to establish the status of a person involving his relations with others, that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the community. 17 In petitions for change of name, a person avails of a remedy to alter the "designation by which he is known and called in the community in which he lives and is best known."18 When granted, a persons identity and interactions are affected as he bears a new "label or appellation for the convenience of the world at large in addressing him, or in speaking of, or dealing with him."19 Judicial permission for a change of name aims to prevent fraud and to ensure a record of the change by virtue of a court decree.
The proceeding under Rule 103 is also an action in rem which requires publication of the order issued by the court to afford the State and all other interested parties to oppose the petition. When complied with, the decision binds not only the parties impleaded but the whole world. As notice to all, publication serves to indefinitely bar all who might make an objection. "It is the publication of 20 such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it." Essentially, a change of name does not define or effect a change of ones existing family relations or in the rights and duti es flowing therefrom. It does not alter ones legal capacity or civil status. 21 However, "there could be instances where the change applied for may be open to objection by parties who already bear the surname desired by the applicant, not because he would thereby acquire 22 certain family ties with them but because the existence of such ties might be erroneously impressed on the public mind." Hence, in requests for a change of name, "what is involved is not a mere matter of allowance or disallowance of the request, but a judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advanced x x x mindful of the consequent results in the event of its grant x x x."23 Rule 108, on the other hand, implements judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code. 24 Entries in the civil register refer to "acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil 25 26 status of persons," also as enumerated in Article 408 of the same law. Before, only mistakes or errors of a harmless and innocuous nature in the entries in the civil registry may be corrected under Rule 108 and substantial errors affecting the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party are beyond the ambit of the rule. In the abandoned case of Chua Wee v. Republic,27 this Court declared that, x x x if Rule 108 were to be extended beyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and controversial alterations concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, said Rule 108 would thereby become unconstitutional for it would be increasing or modifying substantive rights, which changes are not authorized under Article 412 of the new Civil Code." In the latter case of Wong v. Republic,28 however, Justice Vicente Abad Santos, in a separate concurrence, opined that Article 412, which Rule 108 implements, contemplates all kinds of issues and all types of procedures because "the provision does not say that it applies only to non-controversial issues and that the procedure to be used is summary in nature." In Republic v. Judge De la Cruz,29 the dissenting opinion penned by Justice Pacifico De Castro echoed the same view: It is not accurate to say that Rule 108 would be rendered unconstitutional if it would allow the correction of more than mere harmless clerical error, as it would thereby increase or modify substantive rights which the Constitution expressly forbids because Article 412 of the Civil Code, the substantive law sought to be implemented by Rule 108, allows only the correction of innocuous clerical errors not those affecting the status of persons. As was stressed in the dissent on the aforesaid Wong Case, Article 412 does not limit in its express terms nor by mere implication, the correction authorized by it to that of mere clerical errors. x x x it would be reasonable and justified to rule that Article 412 contemplates of correction of erroneous entry of whatever nature, procedural safeguards having only to be provided for, as was the manifest purpose of Rule 108. x x x proceedings for the correction of erroneous entry should not be considered as establishing one's status in a legal manner conclusively beyond dispute or controversion, x x x the books making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto x x x shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained. Hence, the status as corrected would not have a superior quality for evidentiary purpose. Moreover, the correction should not imply a change of status but a mere rectification of error to make the matter corrected speak for the truth. x x x Finally in Republic v. Valencia,30 the above stated views were adopted by this Court insofar as even substantial errors or matters in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established, provided the parties aggrieved avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. "If the purpose of the petition is merely to correct the clerical errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, the court may, under a summary procedure, issue an order for the correction of a mistake. However, as repeatedly construed, changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, as well as sex, are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings depending upon the nature of the issues involved. Changes which affect the civil status or citizenship of a party are substantial in character and should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature of the issues in controversy, and wherein all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented and evidence is submitted to prove the allegations of the complaint, and proof to the contrary admitted x x x."31 "Where such a change is ordered, the Court will not be establishing a substantive right but only correcting or rectifying an erroneous entry in the civil registry as authorized by law. In short, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides only the procedure or mechanism for the proper enforcement of the substantive law embodied in Article 412 of the Civil Code and so does 32 not violate the Constitution."
In the case at bench, the OSG posits that the conversion from "MARILYN" to "MERLYN" is not a correction of an innocuous error but a material correction tantamount to a change of name which entails a modification or increase in substantive rights. For the OSG, this is a substantial error that requires compliance with the procedure under Rule 103, and not Rule 108. It appears from these arguments that there is, to some extent, confusion over the scope and application of Rules 103 and Rule 108. Where a "change of name" will necessarily be reflected by the corresponding correction in an entry, as in this case, the functions of both rules are often muddled. While there is no clear-cut rule to categorize petitions under either rule, this Court is of the opinion that a resort to the basic distinctions between the two rules with respect to alterations in a persons registered name can e ffectively clear the seeming perplexity of the issue. Further, a careful evaluation of circumstances alleged in the petition itself will serve as a constructive guide to determine the propriety of the relief prayed for. The "change of name" contemplated under Article 376 and Rule 103 must not be confused with Article 412 and Rule 108. A change of ones name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds provided by law. In order to justify a request for change of nam e, there must be a proper and compelling reason for the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced by the use of 33 his official name. To assess the sufficiency of the grounds invoked therefor, there must be adversarial proceedings. In petitions for correction, only clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry may be raised. Considering that the enumeration in Section 2, Rule 10834 also includes "changes of name," the correction of a patently misspelled name is covered by Rule 108. Suffice it to say, not all alterations allowed in ones name are confined under Rule 103. Corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108. This rule in "names," however, does not operate to entirely limit Rule 108 to the correction of clerical errors in civil registry entries by way of a summary proceeding. As explained above, Republic v. Valencia is the authority for allowing substantial errors in other entries like citizenship, civil status, and paternity, to be corrected using Rule 108 provided there is an adversary proceeding. "After all, the role of the Court under Rule 108 is to ascertain the truths about the facts recorded therein." 35 A serious scrutiny of this petition reveals a glaring lack of support to the OSGs as sumption that Mercadera intended to change her name under Rule 103. All that the petition propounded are swift arguments on the alleged procedural flaws of Mercaderas peti tion before the RTC. In the same vein, no concrete contention was brought up to convince this Court that the dangers sought to be prevented by the adversarial proceedings prescribed in Rule 103 are attendant in this case. Instead, the RTC found the documents presented by Mercadera to have satisfactorily shown that she had been known as MERLYN ever since, discounting the possibility that confusion, or a modification of substantive rights might arise. Truth be told, not a single oppositor appeared to contest the petition despite full compliance with the publication requirement. Thus, the petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly falls under Rule 108 as it simply sought a correction of a misspelled given name. To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from." To change means "to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute." 36 From the allegations in her petition, Mercadera clearly prayed for the lower court "to remove the faults or error" from her registered given name "MARILYN," and "to make or set aright" the same to conform to the one she grew up to, "MERLYN." It does not take a complex assessment of said petition to learn of its intention to simply correct the clerical error in spelling. Mercadera even attempted to avail of the remedy allowed by R.A. No. 9048 but she unfortunately failed to enjoy the expediency which the law provides and was constrained to take court action to obtain relief. Thus, the petition was clear in stating: 7. That as such, there is a need to correct her given name as appearing in her Certificate of Live Birth from MARILYN to MERLYN to conform to her true and correct given name that she had been using and had been known within the community x x x. 8. That herein petitioner went to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City and requested them to effect such correction in her Certificate of Live Birth, however, the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City will not effect such correction unless an order is obtained by herein petitioner from this Honorable Court because the Local Civil Registrar therein is not yet equipped with permanent appointment before he can validly act on petitions for corrections filed before their office as mandated by Republic Act 9048, hence the filing of this petition. [Emphases supplied] Indeed, there are decided cases involving mistakes similar to Mercaderas case which recognize the same a harmless error. In Yu v. 37 Republic it was held that "to change Sincio to Sencio which merely involves the substitution of the first vowel i in the first n ame 38 into the vowel e amounts merely to the righting of a clerical error." In Labayo-Rowe v. Republic, it was held that the change of
petitioners name from "Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayu" to "Emperatriz Labayo" was a mere innocuous alteration wherein a summary proceeding was appropriate. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, Jaime B. Caranto and Zenaida P. Caranto, the correction involved the substitution of the letters "ch" for the letter "d," so that what appears as "Midael" as given name would read "Michael." In the latter case, this Court, with the agreement of the Solicitor General, ruled that the error was plainly clerical, such that, "changing the name of the child from Midael C. Mazon to Michael C. Mazon cannot possibly cause any confusion, because bot h names can be read and pronounced with the same rhyme (tugma) and tone (tono, tunog, himig)." 39 In this case, the use of the letter "a" for the letter "e," and the deletion of the letter "i," so that what appears as "Marilyn" would read as "Merlyn" is patently a rectification of a name that is clearly misspelled. The similarity between "Marilyn" and "Merlyn" may well be the object of a mix- up that blemished Mercaderas Certificate of Live Birth until her adulthood, thus, her interest to correct the same. The CA did not allow Mercadera the change of her name. What it did allow was the correction of her misspelled given name which she had been using ever since she could remember. It is worthy to note that the OSGs reliance on Republic vs. Hernandez40 is flawed. In that case, this Court said that "a change in a given name is a substantial matter" and that it "cannot be granted by means of any other proceeding that would in effect render it a mere incident or an offshoot of another special proceeding." While this Court stands true to the ruling in Hernandez, the said pronouncement therein was stated in a different tenor and, thus, inapplicable to this case. Hernandez was decided against an entirely different factual milieu. There was a petition for adoption that must not have led to a corresponding change in the adoptees given name because "it would be procedurally erroneous to employ a petition for adoption to effect a change of name in the absence of a corresponding petition for the latter relief at law." In the present case, the issue is the applicability of either Rule 103 or Rule 108 and the relief sought by Mercadera can in fact be granted under the latter. This Court finds no attempt on the part of Mercadera to render the requirements under Rule 103 illusory as in Hernandez. Besides, granting that Rule 103 applies to this case and that compliance with the procedural requirements under Rule 108 falls short of what is mandated, it still cannot be denied that Mercadera complied with the requirement for an adversarial proceeding before the lower court. The publication and posting of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation and the notices sent to the OSG and the Local Civil Registry are sufficient indicia of an adverse proceeding. The fact that no one opposed the petition, including the OSG, did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the same and did not make the proceeding less adversarial in nature. Considering that the OSG did not oppose the petition and the motion to present its evidence ex parte when it had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now complain that the proceedings in the lower court were procedurally defective. Indeed, it has become unnecessary to further discuss the reasons why the CA correctly affirmed the findings of the lower court especially in admitting and according probative value to the evidence presented by Mercadera. WHEREFORE, the December 9, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00568-MIN is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
32
Case 8: Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 162571 June 15, 2005
ARNEL L. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MINOR MARTIN JOSE PROLLAMANTE, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER/GUARDIAN FE ANGELA PROLLAMANTE, respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.: At issue in this petition for certiorari 1 is whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) gravely erred in exercising its discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing a decision2 and resolution3 upholding the resolution and order of the trial court,4 which denied petitioners motion to dismiss private respondents complaint for support and directed the parties to submit themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) paternity testing. Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin Prollamante sued Martins alleged biological father, petitioner Arnel L. Agustin, fo r 5 support and support pendente lite before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 106. In their complaint, respondents alleged that Arnel courted Fe in 1992, after which they entered into an intimate relationship. Arnel supposedly impregnated Fe on her 34th birthday on November 10, 1999. Despite Arnels insistence on abortion, Fe decided otherwise and gave birth to their child out of wedlock, Martin, on August 11, 2000 at the Capitol Medical Hospital in Quezon City. The babys birth certificate was purportedly signed by Arnel as the father. Arnel shouldered the pre-natal and hospital expenses but later refused Fes repeated requests for Martins support despite his adequate financial capacity and even suggested to have the child committed for adoption. Arnel also denied having fathered the child. On January 19, 2001, while Fe was carrying five-month old Martin at the Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club parking lot, Arnel sped off in his van, with the open car door hitting Fes leg. This incident was repo rted to the police. In July 2001, Fe was diagnosed with leukemia and has, since then, been undergoing chemotherapy. On March 5, 2002, Fe and Martin sued Arnel for support. 6 In his amended answer, Arnel denied having sired Martin because his affair and intimacy with Fe had allegedly ended in 1998, long before Martins conception. He claimed that Fe had at least one other secret lover. Arnel admitted that their relationship st arted in 1993 but "he never really fell in love with (Fe) not only because (she) had at least one secret lover, a certain Jun, but also because she proved to be scheming and overly demanding and possessive. As a result, theirs was a stormy on-and-off affair. What started as a romantic liaison between two consenting adults eventually turned out to be a case of fatal attraction where (Fe) became so obsessed with (Arnel), to the point of even entertaining the idea of marrying him, that she resorted to various devious ways and means to alienate (him) from his wife and family. Unable to bear the prospect of losing his wife and children, Arnel termina ted the 7 affair although he still treated her as a friend such as by referring potential customers to the car aircon repair shop" where she worked. Later on, Arnel found out that Fe had another erstwhile secret lover. In May 2000, Arnel and his entire family went to the United States for a vacation. Upon their return in June 2000, Arnel learned that Fe was telling people that he had impregnated her. Arnel refused to acknowledge the child as his because their "last intimacy was sometime in 1998." 8 Exasperated, Fe started calling Arnels wife and family. On January 19, 2001, Fe followed Arnel to the Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club parking lot to dem and that he acknowledge Martin as his child. According to Arnel, he could not get through Fe and the discussion became so heated that he 9 had no "alternative but to move on but without bumping or hitting any part of her body." Finally, Arnel claimed that the signature and the community tax certificate (CTC) attributed to him in the acknowledgment of Martins birth certificate were falsified. The CTC erroneously reflected his marital status as single when he was actually married and that his birth year was 1965 when it should have been 1964.10
In his pre-trial brief filed on May 17, 2002, Arnel vehemently denied having sired Martin but expressed willingness to consider any 11 proposal to settle the case. On July 23, 2002, Fe and Martin moved for the issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity 12 testing pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules of Court. Arnel opposed said motion by invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination. He also moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action, considering that his signature on the birth certificate was a forgery and that, under the law, an illegitimate child is not entitled to support if not recognized by the putative father. 14 In his motion, Arnel manifested that he had filed criminal charges for falsification of documents against Fe (I.S. Nos. 02-5723 and 02-7192) and a petition for cancellation of his name appearing in Martins birth certificate (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-02-46669). He attached the certification of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory that his signature in the birth certificate was forged. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and ordered the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing at the expense of the applicants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Thus, this petition. In a nutshell, petitioner raises two issues: (1) whether a complaint for support can be converted to a petition for recognition and (2) whether DNA paternity testing can be ordered in a proceeding for support without violating petitioners constitutional right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.15 The petition is without merit. First of all, the trial court properly denied the petitioners motion to dismiss because the private respondents complaint o n its face showed that they had a cause of action against the petitioner. The elements of a cause of action are: (1) the plaintiffs primary right and the defendants corresponding primary duty, and (2) the delict or wrongful act or omission of the defendant, by which the primary right and duty have been violated. The cause of action is determined not by the prayer of the complaint but by the facts alleged.16 In the complaint, private respondents alleged that Fe had amorous relations with the petitioner, as a result of which she gave birth to Martin out of wedlock. In his answer, petitioner admitted that he had sexual relations with Fe but denied that he fathered Martin, claiming that he had ended the relationship long before the childs conception a nd birth. It is undisputed and even admitted by the parties that there existed a sexual relationship between Arnel and Fe. The only remaining question is whether such sexual relationship produced the child, Martin. If it did, as respondents have alleged, then Martin should be supported by his father Arnel. If not, petitioner and Martin are strangers to each other and Martin has no right to demand and petitioner has no obligation to give support. Preliminaries aside, we now tackle the main issues. Petitioner refuses to recognize Martin as his own child and denies the genuineness and authenticity of the childs birth certificate which he purportedly signed as the father. He also claims that the order and resolution of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, effectively converted the complaint for support to a petition for recognition, which is supposedly proscribed by law. According to petitioner, Martin, as an unrecognized child, has no right to ask for support and must first establish his filiation in a separate suit under Article 28317 in relation to Article 26518 of the Civil Code and Section 1, Rule 10519 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners contentions are without merit. The assailed resolution and order did not convert the action for support into one for recognition but merely allowed the respondents to prove their cause of action against petitioner who had been denying the authenticity of the documentary evidence of acknowledgement. But even if the assailed resolution and order effectively integrated an action to compel recognition with an 20 action for support, such was valid and in accordance with jurisprudence. In Tayag v. Court of Appeals, we allowed the integration of an action to compel recognition with an action to claim ones inheritance: In Paulino, we held that an illegitimate child, to be entitled to support and successional rights from the putative or presumed parent, must prove his filiation to the latter. We also said that it is necessary to allege in the complaint that the putative father had
13
acknowledged and recognized the illegitimate child because such acknowledgment is essential to and is the basis of the right to inherit. There being no allegation of such acknowledgment, the action becomes one to compel recognition which cannot be brought after the death of the putative father. The ratio decidendi in Paulino, therefore, is not the absence of a cause of action for failure of the petitioner to allege the fact of acknowledgment in the complaint, but the prescription of the action. Applying the foregoing principles to the case at bar, although petitioner contends that the complaint filed by herein private respondent merely alleges that the minor Chad Cuyugan is an illegitimate child of the deceased and is actually a claim for inheritance, from the allegations therein the same may be considered as one to compel recognition. Further, that the two causes of action, one to compel recognition and the other to claim inheritance, may be joined in one complaint is not new in our jurisprudence. As early as [1922] we had occasion to rule thereon in Briz vs. Briz, et al. (43 Phil. 763 [1922]) wherein we said: The question whether a person in the position of the present plaintiff can in any event maintain a complex action to compel recognition as a natural child and at the same time to obtain ulterior relief in the character of heir, is one which in the opinion of this court must be answered in the affirmative, provided always that the conditions justifying the joinder of the two distinct causes of action are present in the particular case. In other words, there is no absolute necessity requiring that the action to compel acknowledgment should have been instituted and prosecuted to a successful conclusion prior to the action in which that same plaintiff seeks additional relief in the character of heir . Certainly, there is nothing so peculiar to the action to compel acknowledgment as to require that a rule should be here applied different from that generally applicable in other cases. x x x The conclusion above stated, though not heretofore explicitly formulated by this court, is undoubtedly to some extent supported by our prior decisions. Thus, we have held in numerous cases, and the doctrine must be considered well settled, that a natural child having a right to compel acknowledgment, but who has not been in fact legally acknowledged, may maintain partition proceedings for the division of the inheritance against his coheirs x x x ; and the same person may intervene in proceedings for the distribution of the estate of his deceased natural father, or mother x x x. In neither of these situations has it been thought necessary for the plaintiff to show a prior decree compelling acknowledgment. The obvious reason is that in partition suits and distribution proceedings the other persons who might take by inheritance are before the court; and the declaration of heirship is appropriate to such proceedings. (Underscoring supplied) Although the instant case deals with support rather than inheritance, as in Tayag, the basis or rationale for integrating them remains the same. Whether or not respondent Martin is entitled to support depends completely on the determination of filiation. A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits, given how intimately related the main issues in both cases are. To paraphrase Tayag, the declaration of filiation is entirely appropriate to these proceedings. On the second issue, petitioner posits that DNA is not recognized by this Court as a conclusive means of proving paternity. He also contends that compulsory testing violates his right to privacy and right against self-incrimination as guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution. These contentions have no merit. Given that this is the very first time that the admissibility of DNA testing as a means for determining paternity has actually been the focal issue in a controversy, a brief historical sketch of our past decisions featuring or mentioning DNA testing is called for. In the 1995 case of People v. Teehankee21 where the appellant was convicted of murder on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, we stated as an obiter dictum that "while eyewitness identification is significant, it is not as accurate and authoritative as the scientific forms of identification evidence such as the fingerprint or the DNA test result(emphasis supplied)." Our faith in DNA testing, however, was not quite so steadfast in the previous decade. In Pe Lim v. Court of Appeals,22 promulgated in 1997, we cautioned against the use of DNA because "DNA, being a relatively new science, (had) not as yet been accorded official recognition by our courts. Paternity (would) still have to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating acts, verbal and written, by the putative father." In 2001, however, we opened the possibility of admitting DNA as evidence of parentage, as enunciated in Tijing v. Court of Appeals:
23
A final note. Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage testing. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA typing
using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and child are analyzed to establish parentage. Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress. The first real breakthrough of DNA as admissible and authoritative evidence in Philippine jurisprudence came in 2002 with our en 24 banc decision in People v. Vallejo where the rape and murder victims DNA samples from the bloodstained clothes of the accused were admitted in evidence. We reasoned that "the purpose of DNA testing (was) to ascertain whether an association exist(ed) between the evidence sample and the reference sample. The samples collected (were) subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile." A year later, in People v. Janson, we acquitted the accused charged with rape for lack of evidence because "doubts persist(ed) in our mind as to who (were) the real malefactors. Yes, a complex offense (had) been perpetrated but who (were) the perpetrators? How we wish we had DNA or other scientific evidence to still our doubts!" In 2004, in Tecson, et al. v. COMELEC26 where the Court en banc was faced with the issue of filiation of then presidential candidate Fernando Poe Jr., we stated: In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. A positive match would clear up filiation or paternity. In Tijing vs. Court of Appeals, this Court has acknowledged the strong weight of DNA testing Moreover, in our en banc decision in People v. Yatar,27 we affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape with homicide, the principal evidence for which included DNA test results. We did a lengthy discussion of DNA, the process of DNA testing and the reasons for its admissibility in the context of our own Rules of Evidence: Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. A persons DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a persons lifetime; the DNA in a persons blood is the same as the DNA f ound in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells. Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins. xxx xxx xxx In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the following factors: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. In the case at bar, Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria was duly qualified by the prosecution as an expert witness on DNA print or identification techniques. Based on Dr. de Ungrias testimony, it was determined that the gene type and DNA profile of appellant are identical to that of the extracts subject of examination. The blood sample taken from the appellant showed that he was of the following gene types: vWA 15/19, TH01 7/8, DHFRP29/10 and CSF1PO 10/11, which are identical with semen taken from the victims vaginal canal. Verily, a DNA match exists between the semen found in the victim and the blood sample given by the appellant in open court during the course of the trial. Admittedly, we are just beginning to integrate these advances in science and technology in the Philippine criminal justice system, so we must be cautious as we traverse these relatively uncharted waters. Fortunately, we can benefit from the wealth of persuasive jurisprudence that has developed in other jurisdictions. Specifically, the prevailing doctrine in the U.S. has proven instructive. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow (509 U.S. 579 (1993); 125 L. Ed. 2d 469) it was ruled that pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used as long as it was relevant and reliable. Judges, under Daubert, were allowed greater discretion over which
25
testimony they would allow at trial, including the introduction of new kinds of scientific techniques. DNA typing is one such novel procedure. Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar, the DNA evidence obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis, and which was appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and molecular biology. Significantly, we upheld the constitutionality of compulsory DNA testing and the admissibility of the results thereof as evidence. In that case, DNA samples from semen recovered from a rape victims vagina were used to positively identify the accused Joel "Kawit" Yatar as the rapist. Yatar claimed that the compulsory extraction of his blood sample for DNA testing, as well as the testing itself, violated his right against self-incrimination, as embodied in both Sections 12 and 17 of Article III of the Constitution. We addressed this as follows: The contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence. Over the years, we have expressly excluded several kinds of object evidence taken from the person of the accused from the realm of 28 29 30 self-incrimination. These include photographs, hair, and other bodily substances. We have also declared as constitutional several procedures performed on the accused such as pregnancy tests for women accused of adultery, 31 expulsion of morphine from ones mouth32 and the tracing of ones foot to determine its identity with bloody footprints. 33 In Jimenez v. Caizares,34 we even authorized the examination of a womans genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by her husband, to verify his claim that she was impotent, her orifice being too small for his penis. Some of these procedures were, to be sure, rather invasive and involuntary, but all of them were constitutionally sound. DNA testing and its results, per our ruling in Yatar,35 are now similarly acceptable. Nor does petitioners invocation of his right to privacy persuade us. In Ople v. Torres,36 where we struck down the proposed national computerized identification system embodied in Administrative Order No. 308, we said: In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good.. . Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards that enhance public service and the common good. Historically, it has mostly been in the areas of legality of searches and seizures,37 and the infringement of privacy of communication38 where the constitutional right to privacy has been critically at issue. Petitioners case involves neither and, as already stated, his argument that his right against self-incrimination is in jeopardy holds no water. His hollow invocation of his constitutional rights elicits no sympathy here for the simple reason that they are not in any way being violated. If, in a criminal case, an accused whose very life is at stake can be compelled to submit to DNA testing, we see no reason why, in this civil case, petitioner herein who does not face such dire consequences cannot be ordered to do the same. DNA paternity testing first came to prominence in the United States, where it yielded its first official results sometime in 1985. In the 39 decade that followed, DNA rapidly found widespread general acceptance. Several cases decided by various State Supreme Courts reflect the total assimilation of DNA testing into their rules of procedure and evidence. The case of Wilson v. Lumb40 shows that DNA testing is so commonly accepted that, in some instances, ordering the procedure has become a ministerial act. The Supreme Court of St. Lawrence County, New York allowed a party who had already acknowledged paternity to subsequently challenge his prior acknowledgment. The Court pointed out that, under the law, specifically Section 516 of 41 the New York Family Court Act, the Family Court examiner had the duty, upon receipt of the challenge, to order DNA tests: 516-a. Acknowledgment of paternity. (a) An acknowledgment of paternity executed pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law or section four thousand one hundred thirty-five-b of the public health law shall establish the paternity of and liability for the support of a child pursuant to this act. Such acknowledgment must be reduced to writing and filed pursuant to section four thousand one hundred thirty-five-b of the public health law with the registrar of the district in which the birth occurred and in which the birth certificate has been filed. No further judicial or administrative proceedings are required to ratify an unchallenged acknowledgment of paternity.
(b) An acknowledgment of paternity executed pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law or section four thousand one hundred thirty-five-b of the public health law may be rescinded by either signators filing of a petition with the court to vacate the acknowledgment within the earlier of sixty days of the date of signing the acknowledgment or the date of an administrative or a judicial proceeding (including a proceeding to establish a support order) relating to the child in which either signator is a party. For purposes of this section, the "date of an administrative or a judicial proceeding" shall be the date by which the respondent is required to answer the petition. After the expiration of sixty days of the execution of the acknowledgment, either signator may challenge the acknowledgment of paternity in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, with the burden of proof on the party challenging the voluntary acknowledgment. Upon receiving a partys challenge to an acknowledgment, the court shall order genetic marker tests or DNA tests for the determination of the childs paternity and shall make a finding of paternity, if appropriate, in accordance with this article. Neither signators legal obligations, including the obligation for child support arising from the acknowledgment, may be suspended during the challenge to the acknowledgment except for good cause as the court may find. If a party petitions to rescind an acknowledgment and if the court determines that the alleged father is not the father of the child, or if the court finds that an acknowledgment is invalid because it was executed on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, the court shall vacate the acknowledgment of paternity and shall immediately provide a copy of the order to the registrar of the district in which the chi lds birth certificate is filed and also to the putative father registry operated by the department of social services pursuant to section three hundred seventy-two-c of the social services law. In addition, if the mother of the child who is the subject of the acknowledgment is in receipt of child support services pursuant to title six-A of article three of the social services law, the court shall immediately provide a copy of the order to the child support enforcement unit of the social services district that provides the mother with such services. (c) A determination of paternity made by any other state, whether established through the parents acknowledgment of paternity or through an administrative or judicial process, must be accorded full faith and credit, if and only if such acknowledgment meets the requirements set forth in section 452(a)(7) of the social security act. (emphasis supplied) DNA testing also appears elsewhere in the New York Family Court Act:42 532. Genetic marker and DNA tests; admissibility of records or reports of test results; costs of tests. a) The court shall advise the parties of their right to one or more genetic marker tests or DNA te sts and, on the courts own motion or the motion of any party, shall order the mother, her child and the alleged father to submit to one or more genetic marker or DNA tests of a type generally acknowledged as reliable by an accreditation body designated by the secretary of the federal department of health and human services and performed by a laboratory approved by such an accreditation body and by the commissioner of health or by a duly qualified physician to aid in the determination of whether the alleged father is or is not the father of the child. No such test shall be ordered, however, upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of res judicata, equitable estoppel, or the presumption of legitimacy of a child born to a married woman . The record or report of the results of any such genetic marker or DNA test ordered pursuant to this section or pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law shall be received in evidence by the court pursuant to subdivision (e) of rule forty-five hundred eighteen of the civil practice law and rules where no timely objection in writing has been made thereto and that if such timely objections are not made, they shall be deemed waived and shall not be heard by the court. If the record or report of the results of any such genetic marker or DNA test or tests indicate at least a ninety-five percent probability of paternity, the admission of such record or report shall create a rebuttable presumption of paternity, and shall establish, if unrebutted, the paternity of and liability for the support of a child pursuant to this article and article four of this act . (b) Whenever the court directs a genetic marker or DNA test pursuant to this section, a report made as provided in subdivision (a) of this section may be received in evidence pursuant to rule forty-five hundred eighteen of the civil practice law and rules if offered by any party. (c) The cost of any test ordered pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section shall be, in the first instance, paid by the moving party. If the moving party is financially unable to pay such cost, the court may direct any qualified public health officer to conduct such test, if practicable; otherwise, the court may direct payment from the funds of the appropriate local social services district. In its order of disposition, however, the court may direct that the cost of any such test be apportioned between the parties according to their respective abilities to pay or be assessed against the party who does not prevail on the issue of paternity, unless such party is financially unable to pay. (emphasis supplied)
In R.E. v. C.E.W., a decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court, DNA tests were used to prove that H.W., previously thought to be an offspring of the marriage between A.C.W. and C.E.W., was actually the child of R.E. with whom C.E.W. had, at the time of conception, maintained an adulterous relationship. In Erie County Department of Social Services on behalf of Tiffany M.H. v. Greg G. ,44 the 4th Department of the New York Supreme Courts Appellate Division allowed G.G., who had been adjudicated as T.M.H.s father by default, to have the said judgment vacated, even after six years, once he had shown through a genetic marker test that he was not the childs father. In this case, G.G. only requested the tests after the Department of Social Services, six years after G.G. had been adjudicated as T.M.H.s father, sought an increase in his support obligation to her. In Greco v. Coleman, the Michigan Supreme Court while ruling on the constitutionality of a provision of law allowing nonmodifiable support agreements pointed out that it was because of the difficulty of determining paternity before the advent of DNA testing that such support agreements were necessary: As a result of DNA testing, the accuracy with which paternity can be proven has increased significantly since the parties in this lawsuit entered into their support agreement(current testing methods can determine the probability of paternity to 99.999999% accuracy). However, at the time the parties before us entered into the disputed agreement, proving paternity was a very significant obstacle to an illegitimate child's access to child support. The first reported results of modern DNA paternity testing did not occur until 1985. ("In fact, since its first reported results in 1985, DNA matching has progressed to 'general acceptance in less than a decade'"). Of course, while prior blood-testing methods could exclude some males from being the possible father of a child, those methods could not affirmatively pinpoint a particular male as being the father. Thus, when the settlement agreement between the present parties was entered in 1980, establishing paternity was a far more difficult ordeal than at present. Contested paternity actions at that time were often no more than credibility contests. Consequently, in every contested paternity action, obtaining child support depended not merely on whether the putative father was, in fact, the child's biological father, but rather on whether the mother could prove to a court of law that she was only sexually involved with one man--the putative father. Allowing parties the option of entering into private agreements in lieu of proving paternity eliminated the risk that the mother would be unable meet her burden of proof. It is worth noting that amendments to Michigans Paternity law have included the use of DNA testing: 46 722.716 Pretrial proceedings; blood or tissue typing determinations as to mother, child, and alleged father; court order; refusal to submit to typing or identification profiling; qualifications of person conducting typing or identification profiling; compensation of expert; result of typing or identification profiling; filing summary report; objection; admissibility; presumption; burden of proof; summary disposition. Sec. 6. (1) In a proceeding under this act before trial, the court, upon application made by or on behalf of either party, or on its own motion, shall order that the mother, child, and alleged father submit to blood or tissue typing determinations, which may include, but are not limited to, determinations of red cell antigens, red cell isoenzymes, human leukocyte antigens, serum proteins, or DNA identification profiling, to determine whether the alleged father is likely to be, or is not, the father of the child. If the court orders a blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling to be conducted and a party refuses to submit to the typing or DNA identification profiling, in addition to any other remedies available, the court may do either of the following: (a) Enter a default judgment at the request of the appropriate party. (b) If a trial is held, allow the disclosure of the fact of the refusal unless good cause is shown for not disclosing the fact of refusal. (2) A blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling shall be conducted by a person accredited for paternity determinations by a nationally recognized scientific organization, including, but not limited to, the American association of blood banks. xxx xxx xxx
45
43
(5) If the probability of paternity determined by the qualified person described in subsection (2) conducting the blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling is 99% or higher, and the DNA identification profile and summary report are admissible as provided in subsection (4), paternity is presumed. If the results of the analysis of genetic testing material from 2 or more persons indicate a probability of paternity greater than 99%, the contracting laboratory shall conduct additional genetic paternity testing until all but 1 of the putative fathers is eliminated, unless the dispute involves 2 or more putative fathers who have identical DNA. (6) Upon the establishment of the presumption of paternity as provided in subsection (5), either party may move for summary disposition under the court rules. this section does not abrogate the right of either party to child support from the date of birth of the child if applicable under section 7. (emphasis supplied) In Rafferty v. Perkins, the Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled that DNA test results showing paternity were sufficient to overthrow the presumption of legitimacy of a child born during the course of a marriage: The presumption of legitimacy having been rebutted by the results of the blood test eliminating Perkins as Justin's father, even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Perkins, we find that no reasonable jury could find that Easter is not Justin's father based upon the 99.94% probability of paternity concluded by the DNA testing. In S.J.F. and J.C.F. v. R.C.W.,48 the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld an order for genetic testing given by the Court of Appeals, even after trial on the merits had concluded without such order being given. Significantly, when J.C.F., the mother, first filed the case for paternity and support with the District Court, neither party requested genetic testing. It was only upon appeal from dismissal of the case that the appellate court remanded the case and ordered the testing, which the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld. The case of Kohl v. Amundson,49 decided by the Supreme Court of South Dakota, demonstrated that even default judgments of paternity could be vacated after the adjudicated father had, through DNA testing, established non-paternity. In this case, Kohl, having excluded himself as the father of Amundsons child through DNA testing, was able to have the default judgment against him vacated. He then obtained a ruling ordering Amundson to reimburse him for the amounts withheld from his wages for child support. The Court said "(w)hile Amundson may have a remedy against the father of the child, she submit(ted) no authority that require(d) Kohl to support her child. Contrary to Amundson's position, the fact that a default judgment was entered, but subsequently vacated, (did) not foreclose Kohl from obtaining a money judgment for the amount withheld from his wages." In M.A.S. v. Mississippi Dept. of Human Services,50 another case decided by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, it was held that even if paternity was established through an earlier agreed order of filiation, child support and visitation orders could still be vacated once DNA testing established someone other than the named individual to be the biological father. The Mississippi High Court reiterated this doctrine in Williams v. Williams.51 The foregoing considered, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent for upholding the orders of the trial court which both denied the petitioners motion to dismiss and ordered him to submit himself for DNA testing. Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the remedy of certiorari is only available "when any tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." 52 In Land Bank of the Philippines v. the Court of Appeals53 where we dismissed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, we discussed at length the nature of such a petition and just what was meant by "grave abuse of discretion": Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison detre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decisionthe same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.
47
The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. On the other hand, if the error subject of the recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated by a quasi-judicial officer or agency with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules. (emphasis supplied) In the instant case, the petitioner has in no way shown any arbitrariness, passion, prejudice or personal hostility that would amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. The respondent court acted entirely within its jurisdiction in promulgating its decision and resolution, and any error made would have only been an error in judgment. As we have discussed, however, the decision of the respondent court, being firmly anchored in law and jurisprudence, was correct. Epilogue For too long, illegitimate children have been marginalized by fathers who choose to deny their existence. The growing sophistication of DNA testing technology finally provides a much needed equalizer for such ostracized and abandoned progeny. We have long believed in the merits of DNA testing and have repeatedly expressed as much in the past. This case comes at a perfect time when DNA testing has finally evolved into a dependable and authoritative form of evidence gathering. We therefore take this opportunity to forcefully reiterate our stand that DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternity. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby D ENIED. The Court of Appeals decision dated January 28, 2004 in CAG.R. SP No. 80961 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
41
Case 9: Family Home

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 172263 July 9, 2008
SPOUSES AUTHER G. KELLEY, JR. and DORIS A. KELLEY, Complainants, vs. 1 PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. and JORGE A. RAGUTANA, Respondents. RESOLUTION CORONA, J.: Petitioner Auther G. Kelley, Jr. (Auther) acquired agricultural chemical products on consignment from respondent Planters Products, Inc. (PPI) in 1989. Due to Authers failure to pay despite demand, PPI filed an action for sum of money against him in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 57 (RTC Makati City). This was docketed as Civil Case No. 91-904. After trial on the merits, the RTC Makati City decided in favor of PPI and issued a writ of execution. Pursuant thereto, respondent sheriff Jorge A. Ragutana sold on execution real property covered by TCT No. 15079 located in Naga City. A certificate of sale was issued in favor of PPI as the highest bidder. After being belatedly informed of the said sale, petitioners Auther and his wife Doris A. Kelley (Doris) filed a motion to dissolve or set aside the notice of levy in the RTC Makati City on the ground that the subject property was their family home which was exempt from execution. Petitioners motion was denied for failure to comply with the three-day notice requirement. Subsequently, petitioners filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of levy and sale of the alleged family home with damages against Ragutana and PPI in the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 19 (RTC Naga City). This was docketed as Civil Case No. 2000-0188. The case was, however, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. The dismissal was upheld by the CA. Petitioners now come to us in this petition for review on certiorari contending that the CA erred in upholding the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2000-0188 by the RTC Naga City. They claim that Doris was a stranger 2 to Civil Case No. 91-904 (in the RTC Makati City) who could not be forced to litigate therein. Petitioners anchor their action in Civil Case No. 2000-0188 on their contention that TCT No. 15079 is the Kelley family home. No doubt, a family home is generally exempt from execution3 provided it was duly constituted as such. There must be proof that the alleged family home was constituted jointly by the husband and wife or by an unmarried head of a family. 4 It must be the house where they and their family actually reside and the lot on which it is situated. 5 The family home must be part of the properties of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, or of the exclusive properties of either spouse with the latters consent, or on the 6 property of the unmarried head of the family. The actual value of the family home shall not exceed, at the time of its constitution, 7 the amount of P300,000 in urban areas and P200,000 in rural areas. Under the Family Code, there is no need to constitute the family home judicially or extrajudicially. All family homes constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988) are constituted as such by operation of law. All existing family residences as of August 3, 1988 are considered family homes and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code.8 The exemption is effective from the time of the constitution of the family home as such and lasts as long as any of its beneficiaries 9 actually resides therein. Moreover, the debts for which the family home is made answerable must have been incurred after August 3, 1988. Otherwise (that is, if it was incurred prior to August 3, 1988), the alleged family home must be shown to have been constituted either judicially or extrajudicially pursuant to the Civil Code.
The rule, however, is not absolute. The Family Code, in fact, expressly provides for the following exceptions: Article 155. The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment except: (1) For non-payment of taxes; (2) For debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home; (3) For debts secured by a mortgage on the premises before or after such constitution; and (4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen and others who have rendered service or furnished material for the construction of the building. xxx xxx xxx
Article 160. When a creditor whose claim is not among those mentioned in Article 155 obtains a judgment in his favor, and he has reasonable grounds to believe that the family home is actually worth more than the maximum amount fixed in Article 157, he may apply to the court which rendered the judgment for an order directing the sale of the property under execution. The court shall so order if it finds that the actual value of the family home exceeds the maximum amount allowed by law as of the time of its constitution. If the increased actual value exceeds the maximum amount allowed by law in Article 157 and results from subsequent voluntary improvements introduced by the person or persons constituting the family home, by the owner or owners of the property, or by any of the beneficiaries, the same rule and procedure shall apply. xxx xxx xxx
We grant the petition only to the extent of allowing petitioners to adduce evidence in the trial court that TCT No. 15079 is in fact their family home as constituted in accordance with the requirements of law. This is in consonance with our ruling in Gomez v. Sta. Ines10 where we held: [The husband and children] were not parties to the Pasig RTC case and are third-party claimants who became such only after trial in the previous case had been terminated and the judgment therein had become final and executory. Neither were they indispensable nor necessary parties in the Pasig RTC case, and they could not therefore intervene in said case. As strangers to the original case, respondents cannot be compelled to present their claim with the Pasig RTC which issued the writ of execution.xxx In said case, the alleged family home was sold on execution by the sheriff of the Pasig RTC. 1avvphi1 The husband and children of the judgment debtor filed a complaint for annulment of sale of the levied property in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya where the alleged family home was situated. As they were considered strangers to the action filed in the Pasig RTC, we ruled that the Nueva Vizcaya 11 RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint and that they could vindicate their alleged claim to the levied property there. WHEREFORE, Civil Case No. 2000-0188 captioned Spouses Auther G. Kelley, Jr. and Doris A. Kelley v. Planters Products, Inc. and Jorge A. Ragutana is hereby REINSTATED and this case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 19 for determination whether or not the property covered by TCT No. 15079 is a duly constituted family home and therefore exempt from execution. SO ORDERED.
43
Case 10: Correction of Entries

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 174689 October 22, 2007
ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. DECISION CORONA, J.: When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; He created them male and female. (Genesis 5:1-2) Amihan gazed upon the bamboo reed planted by Bathala and she heard voices coming from inside the bamboo. "Oh North Wind! North Wind! Please let us out!," the voices said. She pecked the reed once, then twice. All of a sudden, the bamboo cracked and slit open. Out came two human beings; one was a male and the other was a female. Amihan named the man "Malakas" (Strong) and the woman "Maganda" (Beautiful). (The Legend of Malakas and Maganda) When is a man a man and when is a woman a woman? In particular, does the law recognize the changes made by a physician using scalpel, drugs and counseling with regard to a persons sex? May a person successfully petiti on for a change of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery? On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8. The petition, docketed as SP Case No. 02-105207, impleaded the civil registrar of Manila as respondent. Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the spouses Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of live birth (birth certificate). His sex was registered as "male." He further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a female" and that he had always identified himself with girls since childhood. 1 Feeling trapped in a mans body, he consulted several doctors in the United States. He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment and breast augmentation. His attempts to transform himself to a "woman" culminated on January 27, 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment surgery2 in Bangkok, Thailand. He was thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a plastic and reconstruction surgeon in the Philippines, who issued a medical certificate attesting that he (petitioner) had in fact undergone the procedure. From then on, petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. He then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from "Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female." An order setting the case for initial hearing was published in the Peoples Journal Tonight, a newspaper of general circulati on in 3 Metro Manila, for three consecutive weeks. Copies of the order were sent to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the civil registrar of Manila. On the scheduled initial hearing, jurisdictional requirements were established. No opposition to the petition was made. During trial, petitioner testified for himself. He also presented Dr. Reysio-Cruz, Jr. and his American fianc, Richard P. Edel, as witnesses.
On June 4, 2003, the trial court rendered a decision4 in favor of petitioner. Its relevant portions read: Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of making his birth records compatible with his present sex. The sole issue here is whether or not petitioner is entitled to the relief asked for. The [c]ourt rules in the affirmative. Firstly, the [c]ourt is of the opinion that granting the petition would be more in consonance with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual [re-assignment], petitioner, who has always felt, thought and acted like a woman, now possesses the physique of a female. Petitioners misfortune to be trapped in a mans body is not his own doing and should not be in any way taken against him. Likewise, the [c]ourt believes that no harm, injury [or] prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in granting the petition. On the contrary, granting the petition would bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of the petitioner and her [fianc] and the realization of their dreams. Finally, no evidence was presented to show any cause or ground to deny the present petition despite due notice and publication thereof. Even the State, through the [OSG] has not seen fit to interpose any [o]pposition. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the petition and ordering the Civil Registrar of Manila to change the entries appearing in the Certificate of Birth of [p]etitioner, specifically for petitioners first name from "Rommel Jacinto" to MELY and petitioners gender from "Male" to FEMALE. 5 On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. It alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration. On February 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals7 rendered a decision8 in favor of the Republic. It ruled that the trial courts decision lacked legal basis. There is no law allowing the change of either name or sex in the certificate of birth on the ground of sex reassignment through surgery. Thus, the Court of Appeals granted the Republics petition, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the dismissal of SP Case No. 02-105207. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied.9 Hence, this petition. Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth certificate is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA 9048. 10 The petition lacks merit. A Persons First Name Cannot Be Changed On the Ground of Sex Reassignment Petitioner invoked his sex reassignment as the ground for his petition for change of name and sex. As found by the trial court: Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of making his birth records compatible with his present sex . (emphasis supplied) Petitioner believes that after having acquired the physical features of a female, he became entitled to the civil registry changes sought. We disagree. The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification. A change of name is a 12 13 privilege, not a right. Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes. In this connection, Article 376 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 376. No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority. This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law). In particular, Section 1 of RA 9048 provides:
11 6
SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. It vests the power and authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned. Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently 15 16 17 denied. It likewise lays down the corresponding venue, form and procedure. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial. RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed: SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. The petition for change of first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases: (1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or (3) The change will avoid confusion. Petitioners basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex reassignment. He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself into through surgery. However, a change of name does not alter ones legal capacity or civil status.18 RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing petitioners first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest. Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change.19 In addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. 20 In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name. In sum, the petition in the trial court in so far as it prayed f or the change of petitioners first name was not within that courts primary jurisdiction as the petition should have been filed with the local civil registrar concerned, assuming it could be legally done. It was an improper remedy because the proper remedy was administrative, that is, that provided under RA 9048. It was also filed in the wrong venue as the proper venue was in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila where his birth certificate is kept. More importantly, it had no merit since the use of his true and official name does not prejudice him at all. For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners petition in so far as the change of his first name was concerned. No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex On the Ground of Sex Reassignment The determination of a persons sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the statut es. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 412. No entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by RA 9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. In effect, RA 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors. 22 Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register. 23 Section 2(c) of RA 9048 defines what a "clerical or typographical error" is:
21 14
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean: xxx xxx xxx
(3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner. (emphasis supplied) Under RA 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in 24 Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code: ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register. ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register: (1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name. The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Code include even those that occur after birth.25 However, no reasonable interpretation of the provision can justify the conclusion that it covers the correction on the ground of sex reassignment. To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from" while to change means "to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute."26 The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those corresponding to his first name and sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary. Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes the entry in the civil registry of certain acts (such as legitimations, acknowledgments of illegitimate children and naturalization), events (such as births, marriages, naturalization and deaths) and judicial decrees (such as legal separations, annulments of marriage, declarations of nullity of marriages, adoptions, naturalization, loss or recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial determination of filiation and changes of name). These acts, events and judicial decrees produce legal consequences that touch upon the legal capacity, status and nationality of a person. Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the laws. In contrast, sex reassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 407. Neither is it recognized nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly. "Status" refers to the circumstances affecting the legal situation (that is, the sum total of capacities and incapacities) of a person in 27 view of his age, nationality and his family membership. The status of a person in law includes all his personal qualities and relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will, such as his being legitimate or illegitimate, or his being married or not. The comprehensive term status include such matters as the beginning and end of legal personality, capacity to have rights in general, family relations, and its various aspects, such as birth, legitimation, adoption, emancipation, marriage, divorce, and sometimes even succession.28 (emphasis supplied) A persons sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a part of a person s legal capacity and civil status. In this connection, Article 413 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 413. All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be governed by special laws.
47
But there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects. This is fatal to petitioners cause. Moreover, Section 5 of Act 3753 (the Civil Register Law) provides: SEC. 5. Registration and certification of births. The declaration of the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or, in default thereof, the declaration of either parent of the newborn child, shall be sufficient for the registration of a birth in the civil register. Such declaration shall be exempt from documentary stamp tax and shall be sent to the local civil registrar not later than thirty days after the birth, by the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or by either parent of the newborn child. In such declaration, the person above mentioned shall certify to the following facts: (a) date and hour of birth; (b) sex and nationality of infant; (c) names, citizenship and religion of parents or, in case the father is not known, of the mother alone; (d) civil status of parents; (e) place where the infant was born; and (f) such other data as may be required in the regulations to be issued. xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied)
Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of birth. 29 Thus, the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a persons sex made at th e time of his or her birth, if not attended by error,30 is immutable.31 When words are not defined in a statute they are to be given their common and ordinary meaning in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. The words "sex," "male" and "female" as used in the Civil Register Law and laws concerning the civil registry (and even all other laws) should therefore be understood in their common and ordinary usage, there being no legislative intent to the contrary. In this connection, sex is defined as "the sum of peculiarities of structure and function that distinguish a male from a female"32 or "the distinction between male and female."33 Female is "the sex that produces ova or bears young"34 and male is "the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova." 35 Thus, the words "male" and "female" in everyday understanding do not include persons who have undergone sex reassignment. Furthermore, "words that are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary." 36 Since the statutory language of the Civil Register Law was enacted in the early 1900s and remains unchanged, it cannot be argued that the term "sex" as used then is something alterable through surgery or something that allows a post-operative male-to-female transsexual to be included in the category "female." For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and appearance through the intervention of modern surgery, no law authorizes the change of entry as to sex in the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there is no legal basis for his petition for the correction or change of the entries in his birth certificate. Neither May Entries in the Birth Certificate As to First Name or Sex Be Changed on the Ground of Equity The trial court opined that its grant of the petition was in consonance with the principles of justice and equity. It believed that allowing the petition would cause no harm, injury or prejudice to anyone. This is wrong. The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences. First, even the trial court itself found that the petition was but petitioners first step towards his eventual marriage to his male fianc. However, mar riage, one of the most sacred social institutions, is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.37 One of its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female.38 To grant the changes sought by petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual). Second, there are various laws which apply particularly to women such as the provisions of the Labor Code on employment of women, 39 certain felonies under the Revised Penal Code40 and the presumption of survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,41 among others. These laws underscore the public policy in relation to women which could be sub stantially affected if petitioners petition were to be granted.
48
It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that "[n]o judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law." However, it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial legislation. The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it. In our system of government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex reassignment. The need for legislative guidelines becomes particularly important in this case where the claims asserted are statute-based. To reiterate, the statutes define who may file petitions for change of first name and for correction or change of entries in the civil registry, where they may be filed, what grounds may be invoked, what proof must be presented and what procedures shall be observed. If the legislature intends to confer on a person who has undergone sex reassignment the privilege to change his name and sex to conform with his reassigned sex, it has to enact legislation laying down the guidelines in turn governing the conferment of that privilege. It might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a person may be recognized as having successfully changed his sex. However, this Court has no authority to fashion a law on that matter, or on anything else. The Court cannot enact a law where no law exists. It can only apply or interpret the written word of its co-equal branch of government, Congress. Petitioner pleads that "[t]he unfortunates are also entitled to a life of happiness, contentment and [the] realization of their dreams." No argument about that. The Court recognizes that there are people whose preferences and orientation do not fit neatly into the commonly recognized parameters of social convention and that, at least for them, life is indeed an ordeal. However, the remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
49
Case 11: Absentees

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 180863 September 8, 2009
ANGELITA VALDEZ, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. DECISION NACHURA, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Camiling, Tarlac dated November 12, 2007 dismissing petitioner Angelita Valdezs petition for the decla ration of presumptive death of her husband, Sofio Polborosa (Sofio). The facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner married Sofio on January 11, 1971 in Pateros, Rizal. On December 13, 1971, petitioner gave birth to the spouses o nly child, Nancy. According to petitioner, she and Sofio argued constantly because the latter was unemployed and did not bring home any money. In March 1972, Sofio left their conjugal dwelling. Petitioner and their child waited for him to return but, finally, in May 1972, petitioner decided to go back to her parents home in Bancay 1st, Camiling, Tarlac. Three years passed without any word from Sofio. In October 1975, Sofio showed up at Bancay 1st. He and petitioner talked for several hours and they agreed to separate. They executed a document to that effect.1 That was the last time petitioner saw him. After that, petitioner didnt hear any news of Sofio, his whereabouts or even if he was alive or not.2 Believing that Sofio was already dead, petitioner married Virgilio Reyes on June 20, 1985. 3 Subsequently, however, Virgilios application for naturalization filed with the United States Department of Homeland Security was denied because petitioners marriage to Sofio was subsisting.4 Hence, on March 29, 2007, petitioner filed a Petition before the RTC of Camiling, Tarlac seeking the declaration of presumptive death of Sofio. The RTC rendered its Decision5 on November 12, 2007, dismissing the Petition for lack of merit. The RTC held that Angelita "was not able to prove the well-grounded belief that her husband Sofio Polborosa was already dead." It said that under Article 41 of the Family Code, the present spouse is burdened to prove that her spouse has been absent and that she has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead before the present spouse may contract a subsequent marriage. This belief, the RTC said, must be the result of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse. The RTC found that, by petitioners own admission, she did not try to find her husband anymore in light of their mutual agreement to live separately. Likewise, petitioners daughter testified that her mother prevented her from looking for her father. The RTC also said there is a strong possibility that Sofio is still alive, considering that he would have been only 61 years old by then, and people who have reached their 60s have not become increasingly low in health and spirits, and, even assuming as true petitioners testimony that Sofio was a chain smoker and a drunkard, there is no evidence that he continues to drink and smoke until now. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. 6 She argued that it is the Civil Code that applies in this case and not the Family Code since petitioners marriage to Sofio was celebrated on January 11, 1971, long before the Family Code took effect. Petitioner further argued that she had acquired a vested right under the provisions of the Civil Code and the stricter provisions of the Family Code should not be applied against her because Title XIV of the Civil Code, where Articles 384 and 390 on declaration of absence and presumption of death, respectively, can be found, was not expressly repealed by the Family Code. To apply the stricter provisions of the Family Code will impair the rights petitioner had acquired under the Civil Code.
The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated December 10, 2007.7 Petitioner now comes before this Court seeking the reversal of the RTC Decision and Motion for Reconsideration. In its Manifestation and Motion,8 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) recommended that the Court set aside the assailed RTC Decision and grant the Petition to declare Sofio presumptively dead. The OSG argues that the requirement of "well-founded belief" under Article 41 of the Family Code is not applicable to the instant case. It said that petitioner could not be expected to comply with this requirement because it was not yet in existence during her marriage to Virgilio Reyes in 1985. The OSG further argues that before the effectivity of the Family Code, petitioner already acquired a vested right as to the validity of her marriage to Virgilio Reyes based on the presumed death of Sofio under the Civil Code. This vested right and the presumption of Sofios death, the OSG posits, could not be affected by the obligations created under the Family Code. 9 Next, the OSG contends that Article 390 of the Civil Code was not repealed by Article 41 of the Family Code. 10Title XIV of the Civil Code, the OSG said, was not one of those expressly repealed by the Family Code. Moreover, Article 256 of the Family Code provides that its provisions shall not be retroactively applied if they will prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights. 11 The RTC Decision, insofar as it dismissed the Petition, is affirmed. However, we must state that we are denying the Petition on grounds different from those cited in the RTC Decision. Initially, we discuss a procedural issue. Under the Rules of Court, a party may directly appeal to this Court from a decision of the trial court only on pure questions of law. A question of law lies, on one hand, when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts; on the other hand, a question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. Here, the facts are not disputed; the controversy merely relates to the correct application of the law or jurisprudence to the undisputed facts.12 The RTC erred in applying the provisions of the Family Code and holding that petitioner needed to prove a "well-founded belief" that Sofio was already dead. The RTC applied Article 41 of the Family Code, to wit: Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. For the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. It is readily apparent, however, that the marriages of petitioner to Sofio and Virgilio on January 11, 1971 and June 20, 1985, respectively, were both celebrated under the auspices of the Civil Code. The pertinent provision of the Civil Code is Article 83: Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance, unless: (1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or (2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, of if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is presumed dead according to Articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court. Article 390 of the Civil Code states:
51
Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession. The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. The Court, on several occasions, had interpreted the above-quoted provision in this wise: For the purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee. The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee. For the celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that the former spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that such former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believes at the time of the celebration of the marriage.13 Further, the Court explained that presumption of death cannot be the subject of court proceedings independent of the settlement of the absentees estate. In re Szatraw is instructive. In that case, petitioner contracted marriage with a Polish national in 1937. They lived together as husband and wife for three years. Sometime in 1940, the husband, on the pretext of visiting some friends, left the conjugal abode with their child and never returned. After inquiring from friends, petitioner found that her husband went to Shanghai, China. However, friends who came from Shanghai told her that the husband was not seen there. In 1948, petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of her husband arguing that since the latter had been absent for more than seven years and she had not heard any news from him and about her child, she believes that he is dead. In deciding the case, the Court said: The petition is not for the settlement of the estate of Nicolai Szatraw, because it does not appear that he possessed property brought to the marriage and because he had acquired no property during his married life with the petitioner. The rule invoked by the latter is merely one of evidence which permits the court to presume that a person is dead after the fact that such person had been unheard from in seven years had been established. This presumption may arise and be invoked and made in a case, either in an action or in a special proceeding, which is tried or heard by, and submitted for decision to, a competent court. Independently of such an action or special proceeding, the presumption of death cannot be invoked, nor can it be made the subject of an action or special proceeding. In this case, there is no right to be enforced nor is there a remedy prayed for by the petitioner against her absent husband. Neither is there a prayer for the final determination of his right or status or for the ascertainment of a particular fact (Hagans v. Wislizenus, 42 Phil. 880), for the petition does not pray for a declaration that the petitioner's husband is dead, but merely asks for a declaration that he be presumed dead because he had been unheard from in seven years. If there is any pretense at securing a declaration that the petitioner's husband is dead, such a pretension cannot be granted because it is unauthorized. The petition is for a declaration that the petitioner's husband is presumptively dead. But this declaration, even if judicially made, would not improve the petitioner's situation, because such a presumption is already established by law. A judicial pronouncement to that effect, even if final and executory, would still be a prima facie presumption only. It is still disputable. It is for that reason that it cannot be the subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration, if it is the only question or matter involved in a case, or upon which a competent court has to pass. The latter must decide finally the controversy between the parties, or determine finally the right or status of a party or establish finally a particular fact, out of which certain rights and obligations arise or may arise; and once such controversy is decided by a final judgment, or such right or status determined, or such particular fact established, by a final decree, then the judgment on the subject of the controversy, or the decree upon the right or status of a party or upon the existence of a particular fact, becomes res judicata, subject to no collateral attack, except in a few rare instances especially provided by law. It is, therefore, clear that a judicial declaration that a person is presumptively dead, because he had been unheard from in seven years, being a presumption juris tantum only, subject to contrary proof, cannot reach the stage of finality or become final. Proof of actual death of the person presumed dead because he had been unheard from in seven years, would have to be made in another proceeding to have such particular fact finally determined. 1avvphi1 If a judicial decree declaring a person presumptively dead, because he had not been heard from in seven years, cannot become final and executory even after the lapse of the reglementary period within which an appeal may be taken, for such presumption is still disputable and remains subject to contrary proof, then a 15 petition for such a declaration is useless, unnecessary, superfluous and of no benefit to the petitioner. In Lukban v. Republic,16 petitioner Lourdes G. Lukban contracted marriage with Francisco Chuidian on December 10, 1933. A few days later, on December 27, Francisco left Lourdes after a violent quarrel. She did not hear from him after that day. Her diligent search, inquiries from his parents and friends, and search in his last known address, proved futile. Believing her husband was already
14
dead since he had been absent for more than twenty years, petitioner filed a petition in 1956 for a declaration that she is a widow of her husband who is presumed to be dead and has no legal impediment to contract a subsequent marriage. On the other hand, the 17 antecedents in Gue v. Republic are similar to Szatraw. On January 5, 1946, Angelina Gues husband left Manila where they were residing and went to Shanghai, China. From that day on, he had not been heard of, had not written to her, nor in anyway communicated with her as to his whereabouts. Despite her efforts and diligence, she failed to locate him. After 11 years, she asked the court for a declaration of the presumption of death of Willian Gue, pursuant to the provisions of Article 390 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. In both cases, the Court reiterated its ruling in Szatraw. It held that a petition for judicial declaration that petitioner's husband is 18 presumed to be dead cannot be entertained because it is not authorized by law. From the foregoing, it can be gleaned that, under the Civil Code, the presumption of death is established by law and no court declaration is needed for the presumption to arise. Since death is presumed to have taken place by the seventh year of absence,20 Sofio is to be presumed dead starting October 1982. Consequently, at the time of petitioners marriage to Virgilio, there existed no impediment to petitioners capacity to marry , and the marriage is valid under paragraph 2 of Article 83 of the Civil Code. Further, considering that it is the Civil Code that applies, proof of "well-founded belief" is not required. Petitioner could not have been expected to comply with this requirement since the Family Code was not yet in effect at the time of her marriage to Virgilio. The enactment of the Family Code in 1988 does not change this conclusion. The Family Code itself states: Art. 256. This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. To retroactively apply the provisions of the Family Code requiring petitioner to exhibit "well-founded belief" will, ultimately, result in the invalidation of her second marriage, which was valid at the time it was celebrated. Such a situation would be untenable and would go against the objectives that the Family Code wishes to achieve. In sum, we hold that the Petition must be dismissed since no decree on the presumption of Sofios death can be granted under the Civil Code, the same presumption having arisen by operation of law. However, we declare that petitioner was capacitated to marry Virgilio at the time their marriage was celebrated in 1985 and, therefore, the said marriage is legal and valid. WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.
19
53
Case 12: Appeals in Special Proceedings

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 80526 July 18, 1988 J. GONZALES-ORENSE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PRIMA M. CAGUIAT-ALBA, respondents. Ambrosio Padilla, Mempin & Reyes Law Offices for private respondent.
CRUZ, J.: The novel question presented in this case is whether or not, when an award of attorney's fees by the probate court is elevated to the Court of Appeals, a record on appeal is necessary. The issue arose when, having been retained by the private respondent on July 1, 1982, to represent her in the probate of her husband's will, the petitioner was subsequently dismissed on March 5, 1984. He claimed the stipulated attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the estate but the probate court, 1 in its order dated December 8,1986, allowed him only P20,000.00 on the basis of quantum meruit. On December 19, 1986, he filed a notice of appeal from this order, and the probate court then transmitted the records of the case to the Court of Appeals, which notified the petitioner accordingly. On July 20, 1987, he submitted the brief for the appellant. The private respondent traversed with her brief for the appellee on September 8, 1987. On September 22, 1987, however, the Court of Appeals 2 declared the petitioner's appeal abandoned and dismissed for his failure to submit his record on appeal as required under BP 129 and the Interim Rules and Guidelines. The petitioner then came on appeal by certiorari to this Court to ask that the said resolution be set aside as null and void. The pertinent provision of BP 129 reads as follows: Sec. 39. Appeals. The period for appeal from final orders, resolution, awards, judgment or decisions of any court in all cases shall be fifteen (15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution award, judgment or decision appealed from. Provided, however, that in habeas corpuscases the period for appeal shall be forty-eight (48) hours from the notice of the judgment appealed from. No record on appeal shall be required to take an appeal. In lieu thereof, the entire original record shall be transmitted with all the pages prominently numbered consecutively together with an index of the contents thereof. This section shall not apply in appeals in special proceedings and in other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under applicable provisions of the Rules of Court. The Interim Rules and Guidelines provide thus: Sec. 18. Elimination of record on appeal and appeal bond. The filing of a record on appeal shall be dispensed with except in the cases referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 19 hereof. No appeal bond shall be required for an appeal.
54
Sec. 19. Period of Appeal (a) All appeals except in habeas corpus cases and in the cases referred to in paragraph (b) hereof, must be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment, order, resolution or award appealed from; (b) In appeals in special proceedings in accordance with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeal shall be 30 days, a record on appeal being required. The petitioner contends that under the above rules it was not necessary for him to file a record on appeal because his appeal involves an ordinary claim for payment of attorney's fees which may be asserted against the private respondent either in the probate case or in a separate civil action. The appeal should therefore be covered by the general rule rather than by the exception. The probate court apparently believed as much because it immediately directed the transmittal of the records of the case to the respondent court in lieu of the record on appeal, and so too did the appellee for she filed her brief in due time instead of moving to dismiss because of the non-filing of the record on appeal. He adds that he could not be regarded as having abandoned his appeal as in fact he had filed a motion for execution pending appeal on August 11, 1987, without prejudice to the final outcome of his appeal. The private respondent, for her part, supports the respondent court and argues that the above-cited provisions specifically exclude from the general rule special proceedings and other cases where multiple appeals are allowed. The period for appeal in these cases is retained at thirty days and the record on appeal is still necessary. Non-compliance will result in dismissal of the appeal as the requirements are mandatory, and more so in this case since the petitioner was required to file the record on appeal and did not choose to comply with the order of the respondent court. It is stressed that the petitioner's appeal was in Sp. Proc. No. 35398 in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and not in any ordinary or separate civil action. In the view of the Court, the decisive provision is Rule 109, Section 1, of the Rules of Court, which reads in full as follows: Section 1. Orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken. An interested person may appeal in special proceedings from an order or judgment rendered by a Court of First Instance or a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, where such order or judgment: (a) Allows or disallows a will; (b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or the distributive share of the estate to which such person is entitled; (c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the estate of a deceased person, or any claim presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a claim against it; (d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian; (e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or guardian, a final determination in the lower court of the rights of the party appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a special administrator; and (f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the substantial rights of the person appealing, unless it be an order granting or denying a motion for a new trial or for reconsideration. It is settled that the fees of the lawyer representing the executor or administrator are directly chargeable against the client for 3 whom the services have been rendered and not against the estate of the decedent. However, the executor or administrator may claim reimbursement of such fees from the estate if it can be shown that the services of the lawyer redounded to its benefit. 4 As the petitioner's claim for attorney's fees is not a claim against the estate of the private respondent's husband, he could have filed it in an ordinary civil action, in which event an appeal therefrom will not be regarded as involved in a special proceeding requiring the submission of a record on appeal. It appears, however, that it was not filed in such separate civil action but in the probate case itself, which is a special proceeding and so should be deemed governed by Rule 109 on appeals from such proceedings. The appeal would come under Subsection (e) thereof as the order of the probate court granting the challenged attorney's fees "constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or guardian, a final determination in the lower court of the rights of the party appealing." The consequence is that the exception rather than the rule in BP 129 and the Implementing Rules and Guidelines should be followed and, therefore, the record on appeal should be required.
Rule 50, Section 1, of the Rules of Court provides in part as follows: Grounds for dismissal of appeal. An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds: xxx xxx xxx (b) Failure to file, within the period prescribed by these rules, the notice of appeal, appeal bond or record on appeal. On the basis of the above rule, the challenged resolution of the respondent court dismissing the petitioner's appeal cannot be faulted. It is noted, however, that the question presented in this case is one of first impression; that the petitioner acted in honest if mistaken, interpretation of the applicable law; that the probate court itself believed that the record on appeal was unnecessary; and that the private respondent herself apparently thought so, too, for she did not move to dismiss the appeal and instead impliedly recognized its validity by filing the appellee's brief. In view of these circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the Court feels that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to comply with the above-discussed rules by submitting the required record on appeal as a condition for the revival of the appeal. The issue raised in his appeal may then be fully discussed and, in the light of the briefs already filed by the parties, resolved on the merits by the respondent court. ACCORDINGLY, the respondent court is directed to REINSTATE the petitioner's appeal upon his submission, within thirty days from notice hereof, of the required record on appeal as duly approved by the probate court. No costs.
56

Supreme Court Case on Trustee Powers

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Supreme Court Case on Trustee Powers

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1: Trustee

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Psd. 29965 " " " 18247 29965 " "

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Case 3: Habeas Corpus

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Case 4: Writ of Amparo

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Case 5: Writ of Habeas Data

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Case 6: Change of Name

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Case 7: Cancellation/Correction of Entries

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Case 8: Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Case 9: Family Home

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Case 10: Correction of Entries

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Case 11: Absentees

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A

Case 12: Appeals in Special Proceedings

Cases in Special Proceedings (Finals)

Bachelor of Laws 3-A