MARTINEZ V.
MENDOZA (2006)
Summary: A participant in the Nida Blanca murder case was allegedly abducted
and was last seen by Philip Medel at the CIDG in Camp Crama. As the alleged
mastermind Martinez has been missing, his family filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus against CIDG and PNP officers. Court held that for the petition to be granted,
the petitioner must establish by competent and convincing evidence that the
missing person, on whose behalf the Petition was filed, is under the custody of the
respondents. As the petitioners here merely relied on the statements of Philip Medel,
who the court found doubtful, the Court denied the petition.
When respondents deny custody of an allegedly detained person, petitioners have
the duty of establishing the fact of detention by competent and convincing
evidence; otherwise, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued. Nonetheless, when
the disappearance of a person is indubitable, the law enforcement authorities are
duty-bound to investigate it with due diligence and to locate the missing person.
When the wrongdoing is attributable to the police agencies and/or their agents, the
aggrieved may secure the assistance of the People’s Law Enforcement Board or the
Commission on Human Rights.
Facts:
-MICHAEL MARTINEZ, a resident of Sun Valley, Paranaque, was reported to be
abducted while on his way to his mother’s house nearby. The said abductin was
reported to the authorities
-in the evening when MARTINEZ was abducted, the CIDG presented before the
media PHILIP MEDEL, JR. who allegedly named MARTINEZ as the person who
introduced him to ROD LAUREN STRUNK, the husband of Nida Blanca who was also
the alleged mastermind in her killng. PHILIP MEDEL narrated that he say MARTINEZ
at the CIDG at Camp Crame.
-PHILIP MEDEL reiterated that he saw MARTINEZ to the brother of MARTINEZ, even
describing the clothes MARTINEZ was wearing when he was abducted.
-the Martinez family prayed for the release of MARTINEZ, or that they be allowed to
see him, but CIDG did not grant their request
-so Martinez family filed a petition for habeas corpus vs PNP and CIDG officials to
produce MARTINEZ or to justify the continued detention of his liberty.
-RTC set petition for hearing, directed respondents to show cause why writ should
not issue
-RETURN:
* denied any participation or involvement in the alleged abduction or
disappearance of Martinez
* Martinez was never confined or detained by them or in their custody
-HEARING: same stand of respondents. Petitioners presented Philip Medel: said that
he even saw ESPINA (one of the defendants) boxed Martinez in the stomach
RTC: granted the petition
CA: reversed RTC
1.Medel’s credibility was highly suspect: contradicted himself as to material facts
2.Espina’s positive testimony that he was at home at the time when he allegedly
boxed Martinez was never controverted.
3.Presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties.
4.CIDG was equally concerned with the safety of MARTINEZ who is a vital witness
to the case.
WON THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION WAS PROPER? YES
petitioner must establish by competent and convincing evidence that the missing
person, on whose behalf the Petition was filed, is under the custody of respondents.
HERE: evidence insufficient to convince Court that the respondents have MARTINEZ
in their custody
1|Special Proceedings_Balbastro_Cha Mendoza (assignment
1. PROPRIETY OF HABEAS CORPUS
- can’t use habeas corpus in case of disappearances: the grant of relief in a
habeas corpus proceeding is not predicated on the disappearance of a person, but
on his illegal detention. Habeas corpus generally applies 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."
-objective of habeas corpus:
* relieve a person from unlawful restraint. It is devised as a speedy relief from
unlawful restraint.
* to determine whether the person under detention is held under lawful
authority/inquire into the cause of detention of a person: determine whether a
person is being illegally deprived of his liberty.
>if illegal detention: release person
>if lawful detention: HC proceedings terminate.
2. FORCIBLE TAKING AND DISAPPEARANCE
When forcible taking and disappearance -- not arrest and detention -- have been
alleged, the proper remedy is not habeas corpus proceedings,
but criminal investigation and proceedings.
-even if the agency tasked with investigating crimes are suspected of being
responsible for the disappearance of a person who is the subject of HC proceedings,
it will not convert the courts into -- or authorize them through habeas corpus
proceedings to be -- forefront investigators, prosecutors, judges and executioners all
at the same time.
- proceeding for habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a thorough
criminal investigation.
- people may refer their complaints to the PLEB (People’s Law Enforcement Board,
tasked to investigate abuses of PNP), which should be part of their arsenal in the
battle to resolve cases in which members of the PNP are suspected of having caused
the disappearance of anyone.
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, ASHRAF
KUNTING (2006)
Summary: Kunting, an alleged Abu Sayyaf Group member involved in the
kidnappings in Mindanao was detained by the PNP Intelligence group but the TC in
Basilan where he was charged with Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal
Detention ordered that he be turned over to the said TC as Kunting filed an Urgent
Motion for Reinvestigation with them. The said orders were not heeded by PNP-IG,
alleging that there was a pending motion for a change of venue filed as it was
alleged that there would be efforts by the ASG to recover custody of Kunting if he be
brought to Basilan and that this plan may succeed, due to the inadequate security
facility in the municipal jail and its proximity to the area of operation of the ASG.
Thus, Kunting filed petition for HC. Court initially said that Kunting should not be
turned over, he being legally detained. However, as there were insufficient evidence
to prove that there was a pending motion for transfer of venue, the court granted
the transfer.
"once the person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his
detention by a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus."
Facts
-Ashraf KUNTING was charged in RTC Basilan with 4 counts of Kidnapping for
Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention. Warrants of arrest were issued by RTC Basilan
-he was arrested in Malaysia for violation of Malaysian Internal Security Act, was
turned over to the PNP-IG and Task Force Salinglahi, flown to RP and brought to
Camp Crame for booking and custodial investigation
No. 11-12)
-PNP-IG requested RTC Basilan that KUNTING be temporarily detained with them due
to high security risks involved and prayed for corresponding commitment order
-RTC instead ordered that he be turned over to them due to the URGENT MOTION
FOR REINVESTIGATION filed by KUNTING
-PNP-IG wrote to Chief State Prosecutor Zuño to represent them and to file a motion
for transfer of venue on the possibility that if KUNTING would be transferred to
Basilan, ASG would recover his custody
-RTC denied KUNTING’s motion for reinvestigation since PNP-IG has not turned over
KUNTING, and reiterated their order to turn over KUNTING
-with their letter to Chief Prosecutor Zuño still unheeded, PNP OIC of Legal Affairs
Division filed a Motion to defer the implementation of the Order pending the motion
for the transfer of the venue.
-KUNTING filed Petition for HC w/SC:
• Restrained of his liberty
• Never informed of the charges filed against him until he requested his
family to research in Zamboanga that his name appeared in the list of
accused in the Lamitan kidnapping incident
• He never participated in the said kidnapping incident – led him to file
URGENT MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION
• His detention was classified in the records as “for safekeeping purposes
only”
WON the Petition should be granted? NO but…
- The remedy of habeas corpus has one objective: to inquire into the cause of
detention of a person
>if illegal: release detainee
>if legal: HC proceedings terminate
-WRIT is NOT ALLOWED – Section 4
1. Person is under process issued by a court or judge + the court or judge had
jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment or make the order
2. Jurisdiction appears after writ is allowed
3. Person is charged with or convicted of an offense in RP
4. Person is suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment
-HERE:
* Kunting’s detention by the PNP-IG was under process issued by the RTC.
* Kunting was charged with 4 counts of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal
Detention
>>>so cannot be discharged since he was charged with a criminal offense
-BUT wait, there’s more!
-Kunting has been detained by PNP-IG for 2 years while awaiting that DOJ make a
motion for transfer of venue
- In the absence of evidence that the DOJ has indeed filed a motion for the transfer
of venue, In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General stated that the PNP-IG is
presently awaiting the resolution of the Motion for Transfer of Venue it requested
from the DOJ.
-so while pending action on the motion, detention of Kunting is transferred to
Basilan…good luck naman.
AS SIGN MEN T NO . 12 : CHAN GE O F NA ME – RULE 103
Section 1. Venue. - A person desiring to change his name shall
present the petition to the *Court of First Instance of the province
in which he resides, or, in the City of Manila, to *the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court.
2|Special Proceedings_Balbastro_Cha Mendoza (assignment
Section 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for change of
name shall be signed and verified by the person desiring his
name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and shall set
forth:
(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the
province where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years
prior to the date of such filing;
(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is
sought;
(c) The name asked for.
Section 3. Order for hearing. - If the petition filed is sufficient
in form and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose
of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof,
and shall direct that a copy of the order be published before the
hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive weeks in
some newspaper of general circulation published in the province,
as the court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall
not be within thirty (30) days prior to an election nor within four
(4) month after the last publication of the notice.
Section 4. Hearing. - Any interested person may appear at the
hearing and oppose the petition. The Solicitor General or the
proper provincial or city fiscal shall appear on behalf of the
Government of the Republic.
Section 5. Judgment. - Upon satisfactory proof in open court
on the date fixed in the order that such order has been published
as directed and that the allegations of the petition are true, the
court shall, if proper and reasonable cause appears for changing
the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such name be changed
in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
Section 6. Service of judgment. - Judgments or orders
rendered in connection with this rule shall be furnished the civil
registrar of the municipality or city where the court issuing the
same is situated, who shall forthwith enter the same in the civil
register.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048
March 22, 2001
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL
GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY
AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT
No. 11-12)
NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLES 376 AND 412
OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:
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 concerned
city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions
of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.
Sec. 2. Definitions of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms shall
mean:
(1) "City or municipal civil registrar" refers to the head of the local civil registry
office of the city or municipality, as the case may be, who is appointed as such by
the city or municipal mayor in accordance with the provisions of existing laws.
(2) "Petitioner" refers to a natural person filing the petition and who has direct
and personal interest in the correction of a clerical or typographical error in an
entry or change of first name or nickname in the civil register.
(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.
(4) "Civil register" refers to the various registry books and related certificates and
documents kept in the archives of the local civil registry offices, Philippine
Consulates and of the Office of the Civil Register General.
(5) "Civil registrar general" refers to the administrator of the National Statistics
Office which is the agency mandated to carry out and administer the provision of
laws on civil registration.
(6) "First name" refers to a name or nickname given to a person which may
consist of one or more names in addition to the middle and last names.
Sec. 3. Who may File the Petition and Where. - Any person having direct and
personal interest in the correction of a clerical or typographical error in an entry
and/or change of first name or nickname in the civil register may file, in person, a
verified petition with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality
where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept.
In case the petitioner has already migrated to another place in the country and it
would not be practical for such party, in terms of transportation expenses, time and
effort to appear in person before the local civil registrar keeping the documents to
be corrected or changed, the petition may be filed, in person, with the local civil
registrar of the place where the interested party is presently residing or domiciled.
The two (2) local civil registrars concerned will then communicate to facilitate the
processing of the petition.
Citizens of the Philippines who are presently residing or domiciled in foreign
countries may file their petition, in person, with the nearest Philippine Consulates.
3|Special Proceedings_Balbastro_Cha Mendoza (assignment
The petitions filed with the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general
shall be processed in accordance with this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations.
All petitions for the correction of clerical or typographical errors and/or change of
first names or nicknames may be availed of only once.
Sec. 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 the first name or nickname in the
community; or
(3) The change will avoid confusion.
Sec. 5. Form and Contents of the Petition. - The petition shall be in the form of
an affidavit, subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized by law to
administer oaths. The affidavit shall set forth facts necessary to establish the merits
of the petition and shall show affirmatively that the petitioner is competent to
testify to the matters stated. The petitioner shall state the particular erroneous
entry or entries which are sought to be corrected and/or the change sought to be
made.
The petition shall be supported with the following documents:
(1) A certified true machine copy of the certificate or of the page or of the registry
book containing the entry or entries sought to be corrected or changed;
(2) At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct entry or entries
upon which the correction or change shall be based; and
(3) other documents which the petitioner or the city or municipal civil registrar, or
the consul general may consider relevant and necessary for the approval of the
petition.
In case of change of first name or nickname, the petition shall likewise be
supported with the documents mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph.
In addition, the petition shall be published at least once a week for two (2)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Furthermore, the
petitioner shall submit a certification from the appropriate law enforcement
agencies that he has no pending case or no criminal record.
The petition and its supporting papers shall be filed in three (3) copies to be
distributed as follows: first copy to the concerned city or municipal civil registrar, or
the consul general; second copy to the Office of the Civil Registrar General; and the
third copy to the petitioner.
Sec. 6. Duties of the City of Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul
General. - The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general to whom the
petition is presented shall examine the petition and its supporting documents. He
shall post the petition in a conspicuous place provided for the purpose for ten (10)
consecutive days after he finds the petition and its supporting documents sufficient
in form and substance.
The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall act on the petition
and shall render a decision not later than five (5) working days after the completion
of the posting and/or publication requirement. He shall transmit a copy of his
decision together with the records of the proceedings to the Office of the Civil
Registrar General within five (5) working days from the date of the decision.
No. 11-12)
Sec. 7. Duties and Powers of the Civil Registrar General. - The civil registrar Sec. 14. Effectivitiy Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
general shall, within ten (10) working days from receipt of the decision granting a complete publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
petition, exercise the power to impugn such decision by way of an objection based
on the following grounds:
(1) The error is not clerical or typographical; RULE 103 RA 9048
(2) The correction of an entry or entries in the civil register is substantial or Nature of Judicial Administrative: Petition is filed
controversial as it effects the civil status of a person; or Proceeding before the local civil registrar or, for
(3) The basis used in changing the first name or nickname of a person does not fall non-resident citizens, the consul
under Section 4. general
The civil registrar general shall immediately notify the city or municipal civil Scope Substantial changes Correction of clerical or
registrar or the consul general of the action taken on the decision. Upon receipt of in name, including typographical errors and changes in
the notice thereof, the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall surname first name or nickname
notify the petitioner of such action.

The petitioner may seek reconsideration with the civil registrar general or file the
appropriate petition with the proper court. Rule 108 RA 9048
If the civil registrar general fails to exercise his power to impugn the decision of the Nature of Judicial Administrative: Petition is filed with
city or municipal registrar or of the consul general within the period prescribed Proceeding the local civil registrar or, for non-
herein, such decision shall become final and executory. resident citizens, the consul general
Where the petition is denied by the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul Scope Substantial changes Correction of clerical or typographical
general, the petitioner may either appeal the decision to the civil registrar general in entries in the civil errors and changes in first name or
or file the appropriate petition with the proper court. registry, other than nickname
name
Sec. 8. Payment of Fees. - The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul
general shall be authorized to collect reasonable fees as a condition for accepting
the petition. An indigent petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of the said Rule 108 RULE 103
fee. Nature of Judicial Judicial
Proceeding
Sec. 9. Penalty Clause. - A person who violates any of the provisions of this Act Scope Substantial changes Substantial changes in name,
shall, upon conviction, be penalized by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years in entries in the civil including surname
but not more than twelve (12) years, or a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos registry, other than
(P10,000.00) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), or name
both, at the discretion of the court. Who may File Any person interested Person desiring to change his name
in any act, event, or some other person on his behalf
In addition, if the offender is a government official or employee, he shall suffer the order, or decree
penalties provided under civil service laws, rules and regulations. concerning the civil
status of persons.
Sec. 10. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The civil registrar general Where and Verified petition filed Petition filed in the RTC where the
shall, in consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department of Foreign How Filed in the RTC where the petitioner resides
Affairs, the Office of the Supreme Court Administrator, the University of the corresponding civil
Philippines Law Center and the Philippine Association of Civil Registrars, issue the registry is located
necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act not Standing of Civil register Civil register is not a party to the
later than three (3) months from the effectivity of this law. Local Civil concerned is made proceeding.
Register party to the
Sec. 11. Retroactivity Clause. - This Act shall have retroactive effect insofar as it proceeding as a
does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil respondent.
Code and other laws. Notice The court shall cause No mention of cause of notice to be
requirement reasonable notice to sent.
Sec. 12. Separability Clause. - If any portion or provision of this Act is declared be given to persons
void or unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions thereof shall not be named in the petition.
affected by such declaration. *tables from UP LAW BAROPS REVIEWER

Sec. 13. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, YU V. REPUBLIC
other issuances, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

4|Special Proceedings_Balbastro_Cha Mendoza (assignment No. 11-12)

Summary: An alien minor wants to apply for a change of name to a name by which
he was baptized and by which he is known in school but the JDRC denied his petition
on the sole ground that he is an alien.
Rule 103 does not say that only citizens of the Philippines may petition for a change
of name. The word “peson” is a generic term which is not limited to Filipino citizens,
but embraces all natural persons. The rule does not even require that the citizenship
of the petitioner be stated in his petition. It is enough that the petition be verified,
signed by the petitioner or some other person in his behalf, and set forth:
(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the
petition has been filed for at least 3 years to the date of filing;
(b) The cause for which the change of name is sought; and
(c) The name asked for Section 2.
The rule is clear and affords no room for interpretation. It sets forth all the
requirements and Filipino citizenship is not one of them.
Facts
JOSELITO YU, represented by guardian ad litem JUAN SY BARRERA, filed a petition for
the Change of his name from JOSELITO YU to RICARDO SY
-allegations:
○ Minor (13 years)
○ Chinese Citizen
○ Resident of Manila for more than 3 years prior to filing of petition
-cause for change of name:
• He grew up under the care and custody of his guardian ad litem using the
name "RICARDO SY"
• He is enrolled in school under the said name
• He was baptized "RICARDO SY" with his real name also stated
-JDRC: DISMISSED: Rule 103 cannot be invoked by aliens
>since the use of surnames is based on family rights, and since under Article 15 of
the Civil Code laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition
and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even
though living abroad, the converse of the principle must be recognized, that is to
say, the same matters in respect of an alien must be governed by the laws of his
own country.
WON the petition was correctly dismissed because the petitioner was an
alien? NO. Being an Alien is not a prerequisite.
-Section 1 provides that "a person desiring to change his name shall present the
petition to the Court of First Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in the
City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court." Here the word
"person" is a generic term which is not limited to Filipino citizens, but embraces all
natural persons. The rule does not even require that the citizenship of the petitioner
be stated in his petition. It is enough that the petition be verified, signed by the
petitioner or some other person in his behalf, and set forth (a) that the petitioner
has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at least
three (3) years prior to the date of filing; (b) the cause for which the change of name
is sought; and (c) the name asked for (section 2). The rule is clear and affords no
room for interpretation. It sets forth all the requirements, and Filipino citizenship is
not one of them.
-On JDRC's ruling: a change of name as authorized under Rule 103 does not by
itself define, or effect a change in, one's existing family relations, or in the rights
and duties flowing therefrom; nor does it create new family rights and duties where
none before were existing. It does not alter one's legal capacity, civil status or
5|Special Proceedings_Balbastro_Cha Mendoza (assignment
citizenship. What is altered is only the name, which is that word or combination of
words by which a person is distinguished from others and which he bears as the
label of appellation for the convenience of the world at large in addressing him, or in
speaking of or dealing with him. The situation is no different whether the person
whose name is changed be a citizen or an alien.
-purpose of petition: to determine whether there is proper and reasonable cause
for the change of name
-granting of petition is discretionary: the change is not a matter of right but of
judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the
consequences that will likely follow
Disposition: Remanded
ONG PENG OAN V. REPUBLIC
Summary: A Chinese man, convicted twice before for gambling, wants to change
his name allegedly because he has been using it since his arrival in the Philippines,
and it is with this name that he has been known. Court found that he has different
aliases, and uses it whenever he pleases, so this doesn’t show that his petition was
justified.
The change is not a matter of right but judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light
of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will likely follow.
A change of name is a mere privilege and not a matter of right.
A person with a criminal record will have evident interest in the use of a name other
than his own, in an attempt to obliterate an unsavory record; hence, the mere fact
that the applicant has been using a different name and has become known by it
does not per se alone constitute “proper and reasonable cause”, or justification, to
legally authorize a change of name. There being no showing that petitioner will be
prejudiced by the continued use of his true name, for in fact he has been using it all
along together with the other names he has assumed on different occasions, we fail
to see any error or abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the
petition. Where prior convictions exist, it is the court’s duty to consider carefully the
consequences of the change of name, and to deny the same unless weighty reasons
are shown.
Facts
-ONG PENG OAN:
• Chinese
• 45 years old
• Married businessman
• Lived in Sampaloc
-filed a petition to change his name to VICENTE CHAN BON LAY
Reasons:
• He has been using that name since his arrival in the country
• That is the name by which he is known in both business and social circles
TC: DISMISSED PETITION
-convicted 2x for gambling
-petitioner was not using VICENTE CHAN BON LAY because when he was convicted,
his name was ONG PIN CAN and ONG PEN OAN alias VICENTE CHAN - he changes his
name whenever it suits his convenience
WON the dismissal of the petition was warranted? YES
-A person with a criminal record will have evident interest in the use of a name other
than his own, in an attempt to obliterate an unsavory record; hence, the mere fact
that the applicant has been using a different name and has become known by it
does not per se alone constitute "proper and reasonable cause", or justification, to
legally authorize a change of name.
-No prejudice by the continued use of his true name
No. 11-12)
-Where prior convictions exist, it is the court's duty to consider carefully the
consequences of the change of name, and to deny the same unless weighty reasons
are shown.
-the State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for
purposes of identification, and that a change of name is a privilege and not a matter
of right.
X . V OLUN TARY DISSOLU TIO N O F COR PO RATI ON S
RULE 104 Voluntary Dissolution of Corporations
Section 1. Where, by whom and on what showing
application made. - A petition for dissolution of a corporation
shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where
the principal office of a corporation is situated. The petition shall
be signed by a majority of its board of directors or other officers
having the management of its affairs, verified by its president or
secretary or one of its directors, and shall set forth all claims and
demands against it, and that its dissolution was resolved upon by
a majority of the members, or, if a stock corporation, by the
affirmative vote of the stockholders holding and representing
two-thirds of all shares of stock issued or subscribed, at a
meeting of its members or stockholders called for that purpose.
Section 2. Order thereupon for filing objections. - If the
petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court by an order
reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date on or before
which objections thereto may be filed by any person, which date
shall not be less that thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days
after the entry of the order. Before such date a copy of the order
shall be published at least once a week for four (4) successive
weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the
municipality or city where the principal office of the corporation is
situated, or, if there be no such newspaper, then in some
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, and a similar
copy shall be posted for four (4) weeks in three public places in
such municipality or city.
Section 3. Hearing, dissolution, and disposition of assets.
Receiver. - Upon five (5) days notice given after the date on
which the right to file objections as fixed in the order expired, the
court shall proceed to hear the petition and try any issue made
by objections filed; and if no such objection is sufficient, and the
material allegations of the petition are true, it shall render
judgment dissolving the corporation and directing such
disposition of its assets as justice requires, and may appoint a
receiver to collect such assets and pay the debts of the
corporation.
6|Special Proceedings_Balbastro_Cha Mendoza
Section 4. What shall constitute record. - The petition,
orders, proof of publication and posting, objections filed,
declaration of dissolution, and any evidence taken, shall
constitute the record in the case.
JUDIC IAL A PPROV AL O F VOLU NTAR Y REC OG NITI ON O F MI NOR NATURA L
C HILDRE N
RULE 105 Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of
Minor Natural Children
Section 1. Venue. - Where judicial approval of a voluntary
recognition of a minor natural child is required, such child or his
parents shall obtain the same by filing a petition to that effect
with the Court of First Instance of the province in which the child
resides. In the City of Manila, the petition shall be filed in the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
Section 2. Contents of petition. - The petition for judicial
approval of a voluntary recognition of a minor natural child shall
contain the following allegations:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The names and residences of the parents who acknowledged
the child, or of either of them, and their compulsory heirs, and the
person or persons with whom the child lives;
(c) The fact that the recognition made by the parent or parents
took place in a statement before a court of record or in an
authentic writing, copy of the statement or writing being attached
to the petition.
Section 3. Order for hearing. - Upon the filing of the petition,
the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the same, shall fix
the date and place for the hearing thereof, which date shall not
be more than six (6) months after the entry of the order, and
shall, moreover, cause a copy of the order to be served
personally or by mail upon the interested parties, and published
once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper or
newspaper of general circulation in the province.
Section 4. Opposition. - Any interested party must, within
fifteen (15) days from the service, or from the last date of
publication, of the order referred to in the next preceding section,
file his opposition to the petition, stating the grounds or reasons
therefor.
(assignment No. 11-12)

Section 5. Judgment. - If, from the evidence presented during
the hearing, the court is satisfied that the recognition of the
minor natural child was willingly and voluntarily made by he
parent or parents concerned, and that the recognition is for the
best interest of the child, it shall render judgment granting
judicial approval of such recognition.
Section 6. Service of judgment upon civil registrar. - A
copy of the judgment rendered in accordance with the preceding
section shall be served upon the civil registrar whose duty it shall
be to enter the same in the register.
Cf: Family Code provisions (kasi ung mga cases uses NCC)
Chapter 2. Proof of Filiation
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be
proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a,
267a)
Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or
her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during
minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of
five years within which to institute the action.
…
Chapter 3. Illegitimate Children
Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same
way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.
The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173,
except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which
case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. (289a)
BAÑAS V. BAÑAS
Summary: Raymundo Banas initially had no father, but was supported by Bibiano
Banas and was treated by the latter as his own son. It appeared that Bibiano’s
brother Pedro was the real father of Raymundo, and thereafter, Pedro made legal
amends to documents wherein Bibiano was stated as Raymundo’s father. When
Bibiano died, Raymundo’s heirs (Raymundo also died) claimed share in the
inheritance from Bibiano, arguing that Raymundo is Bibiano’s natural and
acknowledged child, showing documents allegedly showing that Bibiano
acknowledged to be the father of Raymundo, even showing a letter with “Su Padre”.
Court held that the documents presented were not enough to prove that Bibiano did
recognize Raymundo to be his child and that Raymundo should have initiated
proceedings for acknowledgment during the lifetime of his alleged father, and even
after but during his lifetime.
In the Gustilo v. Gustilo, wherein the evidence submitted as proof of voluntary
recognition does not only include a letter written by the alleged father to the natural
child which also ends with the complimentary ending “ tu padre”, but other stronger
7|Special Proceedings_Balbastro_Cha Mendoza
evidence tending to show voluntary recognition, the Court held that such evidence
does not prove express recognition.
*warning: long digest because long case!
Facts
-RAYMUNDO BANAS was born out of wedlock in March 15, 1894 (haha, advance
happy birthday. By the time na nadiscuss to sa class its March 13)
-mother: DOLORES CASTILLO
-father: unknown earlier in his life (but later alleged that it was PEDRO BANAS)
-RAYMUNDO'S education was shouldered by a surgeon, BIBIANO BANAS
-one day when RAYMUNDO was 13 years old, BIBIANO finding him not home yet,
wrote him a handwritten note which read:
Mundo hoy a las 10 y 45. Tu no estas en casa. No requieres tu obedecer lo
que te dije que en estas horas estudiar, descansar y ayudar con su madre.
Que no veo mas otraves asi.
23/5/7
Su Padre
(Sgd.) B. Bañas.
-RAYMUNDO became a teacher. BIBIANO subsequently married FAUSTINA VECINO
BANAS and had children
-When RAYMUNDO was 28 years old, he met his future wife TRINIDAD VECINO (niece
of BIBIANO's wife FAUSTINA, being the daughter of FAUSTINA's brother ANGEL)
-RAYMUNDO and FAUSTINA subsequently got married. In the marriage certificate,
BIBIANO was named as the father of RAYMUNDO and PEDRO was named a principal
sponsor.
-RAYMUNDO and PEDRO executed a sworn statement wherein:
As for RAYMUNDO
• RAYMUNDO declared that he was the natural child of DOLORES and an
unknown father, who he later known to be PEDRO BANAS
• That he realized that his marriage certificate had an error, stating his father
to be BIBIANO instead of PEDRO
• That he wanted to correct the said error
As for PEDRO
• RAYMUNDO is his natural son
• He found that the marriage certificate erred in stating that he is not the
father of his sn
• That he is executing the document to ask for correction from the Justice of
Peace of Pasay who where RAYMUNDO and TRINIDAD got married
-both sworn statements were recorded in the Notarial book of Notary Public Andres
Faustino
-Both sworn statements were filed with the Office of the Justice of Peace of Pasay
and the said justice of peace issued a CONSTANCIA correcting the error (I think…
Spanish eh)
-subsequently the marriage contract was corrected, making PEDRO the father of
RAYMUNDO
-PEDRO also wrote to Archibishop of Manila where he acknowledged RAYMUNDO as
his natural son and asked for the correction of the baptismal certificate of
RAYMUNDO as well as those of RAYMUNDO's children (to specify that he is the
grandfather, not BIBIANO)
-BIBIANO executed a sworn statement saying that PEDRO had a child RAYMUNDO
-RAYMUNDO and his family later moved from QUIAPO to KALIMBA ST., SANTA CRUZ
(owned by BIBIANO but transferred to RAYMUNDO's name)
-BIBIANO died in 1954. At that time, RAYMUNDO was already 60 years old
-a year later, RAYMUNDO wrote to Atty. Faustino complaining bitterly about the
alleged injustices done to him by BIBIANO's wife FAUSTINA, and alleged that he had
proof against Faustina
-a year after BIBIANO's death, the heirs extra-judicially settled BIBIANO's estate
(assignment No. 11-12)
-later that year, RAYMUNDO and TRINIDAD executed a mortgage over their house in family but who was taken under similar circumstances, is regarded as a member of
KALIMBAS St. in favor of ANGEL BANAS (son of BIBIANO with FAUSTINA) but was the family and called "hija" or "hijo " by the head thereof.'
later cancelled. -VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION: Article 278, NCC (taken from old civil code - Article
-8 years after BIBIANO's death, RAYMUNDO died 131)
-3 years after RAYMUNDO's death (11 years after BIBIANO's), the heirs of ...formalities: express, made in either:
RAYMUNDO filed a complaint for partition or recovery of hereditary share of • Record of birth
RAYMUNDO in BIBIANO's estate, alleging that RAYMUNDO is an acknowledged • Will
natural child of BIBIANO • Statement before a court of record (n)
-Evidence presented (allegedly found by TRINIDAD in RAYMUNDO's aparador after • Any authentic writing (not public document anymore)
his death): *I only included some which were discussed in the decision* ...express recognition (Estate of Pareja v. Pareja): must be precise, express and
• EXHIBIT A: the handwritten note by BIBIANO to RAYMUNDO when he was 13 solemn
years old "Su Padre, B. Banas"
• EXHIBITS "D" & "E": matriculation certificates of RAYMUNDO in SAN BEDA WON the "Su Padre" note could be considered sufficient to apply the rule
wherein it was stated "RAYMUNDO BANAS is hijo de BIBIANO BANAS" of incidental acknowledgment? NO.
• EXHIBITS "F"…RAYMUNDO's gradeschool report card wherein BIBIANO
-the plaintiffs cite DONADO v. MENENDEZ DONADO (acknowledgment made
signed as the parent/guardian of RAYMUNDO (though attempted to be
in a public orprivate document need not be direct ): the authorities cited
erased)
endorse incidental acknowledgment, in cases of voluntary recognition, if the alleged
• EXHIBIT G: Form 137 of RAYMUNDO showing that his parent-guardian is
voluntary recognition were made in a PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
BIBIANO
-the authorities cited were made during the old civil code (where the voluntary
• EXHIBITS "K" & "L": Autobiographies of RAYMUNDO
recognition may be made only in a record of birth, will or other public document - no
• EXHIBIT H: marriage certificate of RAYMUNDO and TRINIDAD
private document yet!)
-defendant's evidence (found in BIBIANO's safe):
-the cited statement was later clarified in JAVELONA v. MONTECLARO
• Duplicate copies of sworn statements made by RAYMUNDO and PEDRO
-ratio why incidental acknowledgment allowed only in public documents: The father
(wherein they acknowledged being father and son)
would ordinarily be more careful about what he says in a public document than in a
• Duplicate copy of the sworn statement executed by BIBIANO (wherein he
private writing, so that even an incidental mention of the child as his in a public
said that RAYMUNDO is his brother's son)
document deserves full faith and credit ...
• Duplicate copy of PEDRO's letter to the archbishop (wherein he wanted to be
-voluntary recognition vs. express recognition:
indicated as RAYMUNDO's father in the baptismal certificate)
TC: DISMISSED COMPLAINT
Voluntary recognition (A131) Express recognition (A135)
WON BIBIANO had voluntarily acknowledged RAYMUNDO BANAS as hs
natural son through his handwritten note where he signed "Su padre" B. Record of birth, will, public document Private writing may be considered as
Banas? NO "indubitable writing"
-on authenticity of handwriting: TRINIDAD testified that the handwriting on
thenote is BIBIANO's, as she saw BIBIANO write. However, the note was written in natural child merely asks for a share in compel the father or his heirs to
1907, but TRINIDAD saw BIBIANO write in 1917. The testimony was considered the inheritance in virtue of his having recognize the child
unreliable, with the lapse of time. Any testimony that the writing is the handwriting been acknowledged as such, not trying
of a person no the ground that the witness is familiar with the handwriting must be to compel father or his heirs to make the
considered unreliable. acknowledgment
-even granting it's authentic, it's not sufficient as proof of valid voluntary
recognition: acknowledgment has been formally and recognition is yet to be ordered by the
The complimentary ending, "Su padre," taking into consideration the context of the legally accomplished because the public courts because a private writing,
entire letter, is not an indubitable acknowledgment of paternity. It is a mere character of the document makes lacking the stronger guaranty and
indication of paternal solicitude. judicial pronouncement unnecessary higher authenticity of a public
The Filipinos are known for having very close family ties. Extended families are a document, is not self-executory
common set-up among them, sometimes to the extent that strangers are also -even if treated as an "indubitable writing", no intent to recognize sufficiently
considered as part of the family. In addition, Filipinos are generally fond of children, apparent in the document. It's merely an indication of paternal concern of one for
so that children of relatives or even of strangers are supported if their parents are the well-being of the natural son of his brother who could nto support or rear the
not capable to do so. This is a manifestation of the fact that Filipinos are still living in boy.
a patriarchal society.
-compared to GUSTILLO v. GUSTILLO: similar evidences presented. There, the WON the other records would be sufficient to confirm the intention of
evidence presented were not signed by the putative father. The note where the Bibiano to recognize RAYMUNDO as his natural son? NO.
putative father addressed the alleged daughter "Queridas hijas: ... Conservanmas
-no evidence that Bibiano furnished the statements therein or had any participation
buenas que es siempre el desee de tu padre." was held to be not an unequivocal
in securing the enrollment and the marriage certificate of Raymundo nor made
avowal that the alleged daughter was indeed such by the putative father. It is not
representations in connections therewith
uncommon in many Filipino homes that a child who is a perfect stranger to the

8|Special Proceedings_Balbastro_Cha Mendoza (assignment No. 11-12)

-the authentic writing upon which the claim to filiation rests must, to be
effective, be one made by the putative father himself and that the writing
must be the writing of the said alleged father
-on REPORT CARD: PEDRO, RAYMUNDO and DOLORES lived with BIBIANO when
RAYMUNDO was attending gradeschool: It would appear, therefore, that Pedro Bañas
was unable to support himself and his wife, and it could very well be that Bibiano
Bañas had sort of adopted de facto—not—legally or considered Raymundo, the son
of his brother, to be his own "ampon" in Tagalog or Filipino, and had taken paternal
solicitude for him - so he is a GUARDIAN
If there's any acknowledgment, WON BIBIANO could validly rectify or
repudiate the same by his sworn statement? YES
-no law prohibiting it
-if there's no law, it doesn't mean that it cannot be done.
- such rectification must not be arbitrary and its purpose must be to show that the
acknowledged child does not have the conditions that the law requires in order that
he may be so acknowledged, or that he has not the absolute condition of being the
child of the person who acknowledged him, or that such person could not have
begotten him, or that the child is the child of a third person
-BIBIANO only made the rectification after RAYMUNDO and PEDRO executed sworn
statements wherein they each recognized their filiation as father and son.
-RAYMUNDO could have nullified or formally declared as untrue the
statements he made in his sworn statements but did not: Where a party has
the means in his power of rebutting and explaining the evidence adduced against
him, f it does not tend to the truth, the omission to do so furnishes a strong
inference against him
WON RAYMUNDO could have filed for COMPULSORY RECOGNITION? NO
-Raymundo should and could have filed an action for compulsory recognition during
Bibiano's lifetime, alleging continuous possession of the status of a natural child by
direct acts of Bibiano or of his family, and that he has in his favor proof that Bibiano
is his father: Raymundo was already of age before his alleged father's death. Thus,
after Bibiano's death, he cannot claim compulsory recognition as the child of Bibiano
-under the provisions for COMPULSORY RECOGNITION (A135, OCC; A283 NCC):
Art. 135. The father may be compelled to acknowledge his natural child
in the following cases:
1. When an indubitable writing of his exists in which he expressly acknowledges
his paternity;
2. When the child is in the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural
child of the defendant father, justified by the conduct of the father himself or that
of his family; ... (emphasis supplied).
Art. 283. In any of the following cases, the father is obliged to recognize
the child as his natural child:
xxx xxx xxx
2. When the child is in continuous possession of the status of a child of the
alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or of his family;
3. When the child was conceived during the time when the mother cohabited
with the supposed father;
4. When the child has in his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his
father (emphasis supplied).
-under A137, OCC; A285, NCC: action for compulsory recognition prescribes if not
taken during the lifetime of the alleged parents, unless the case falls under the
exceptions which allows the filing of such action even after the death of the alleged
parents: ONE OF WHICH IS WHEN AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PUTATIVE PARENT, A
DOCUMENT APPEARS OF WHICH NOTHING HAD BEEN HEARD AND IN WHICH PARENT
RECOGNIZES THE CHILD
9|Special Proceedings_Balbastro_Cha Mendoza (assignment
…here, the alleged document is not unknown to RAYMUNDO nor to TRINIDAD
...Documents allegedly proving RAYMUNDO's filiation with BIBIANO were allegedly
only discovered after RAYMUNDO's death: BUT
• Trinidad should have known about these documents even during the lifetime
of RAYMUNDO, as RAYMUNDO was naturally expected to share with his wife
TRINIDAD his bitterness, more so because TRINIDAD was the niece of
FAUSTINA who allegedly deprived him of his share. It is highly improbable
that RAYMUNDO would hide from his wife whatever proofs he has in his
possession to support his claim to a share n estate.
• It is not normal for Trinidad to not have seen RAYMUNDO's DEATH
MEMENTOs which would tend to establish his filiation to BIBIANO, it having
sentimental value
• TRINIDAD's testimonies conflict: in the cross, she said RAYMUNDO did not
discuss with her matters pertaining to RAYMUNDO's claim in BIBIANO's
estate. However, during the re-cross, she alleged that RAYMUNDO did
discuss it with her (Raymundo and she allegedly went to FAUSTINA to claim
their share)
-RAYMUNDO was bitter because of the partition, but if he really is the natural
acknowledged child, he should have filed a claim against the estate during the 8
years between BIBIANO's death and his own
WON granting RAYMUNDO could have filed an action for compulsory
recognition, upon his death his heirs could file such action? NO
-Right to file for compulsory recognition is NOT TRANSMISSIBLE TO THE NATURAL
CHILD'S HEIRS.
-the right is purely a personal one to the natural child
-It is most illogical and contrary to every rule of correct interpretation that the right
of action to secure acknowledgment by the natural child should be presumed to be
transmitted, independently, as a rule, to his heirs, while the right to claim legitimacy
from his predecessor is not, as a rule, conceded to the heirs of the legitimate child,
but only relatively and as an exception. Consequently, the pretention that the right
of action no the part of the child to obtain the acknowledgment of his natural
filiation is transmitted to his descendants is altogether No legal provision exists to
sustain such pretention, nor can an argument of presumption be based no the lesser
claim when there is no basis for the greater one, and when it is only given as an
exception in well-defined cases. It is placing the heirs of the natural child no a better
footing than the heirs of the legitimate one, when, as a matter of fact, the position of
natural child is not better than, nor even equal to, that of a legitimate child
UYGUANGCO V. CA
*this case explains the effect of FC on NCC provisions on proving filiation
Summary: Graciano, the alleged illegitimate child of Apolinario, filed a complaint
for partition, alleging that he has been left out of the partition by the heirs of his
putative father. Defendants alleged that the action should be dismissed, as he is
collaterally establishing his illegitimate filiation to a putative father who is already
dead. Court held that even if he has shown prima facie proof that he is indeed an
illegitimate son of the decedent whose estate is being partitioned, he should have
established his filiation during the lifetime of his father to participate in the partition.
It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this time to
introduce evidence of his open and continuous possession of the status of an
illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation through any of the means allowed by
the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is that Apolinario Uyguangco is
already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged son’s
illegitimate filiation. In her Handbook on the Family Code, of the Philippines, Justice
Alicia Sempio-Dy explains the rationale of the rule, thus: “It is a truism that unlike
No. 11-12)
legitimate children who are publicly recognized, illegitimate children are usually (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate family being aware of (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
their existence. Who then can be sure of their filiation but the parents themselves? -under FC, an illegitimate child can establish a claim to filiation by "any other means
But suppose the child claiming to be the illegitimate child of a certain person is not allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws," like his baptismal certificate, a
really the child of the latter? The putative parent should thus be given the judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common
opportunity to affirm or deny the child’s filiation, and this, he or she cannot do if he reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of
or she is already dead. witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Facts -HOWEVER, HIS ACTION IS NOW BARRED.
-APOLINARIO UYGUANGCO died It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this time
-heirs: to introduce evidence of his open and continuous possession of the status
• DOROTEA (wife) of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation through any of the
• 4 legitimate children: means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is
• Virgilio that Apolinario Uyguangco is already dead and can no longer be heard on
• Apolinario, Jr. the claim of his alleged son’s illegitimate filiation. In her Handbook on the
• Sulpicio Family Code, of the Philippines, Justice Alicia Sempio-Dy explains the
• Dominador rationale of the rule, thus: “It is a truism that unlike legitimate children
.. The heirs made an extrajudicial settlement of APOLINARIO's estate who are publicly recognized, illegitimate children are usually begotten and
-GRACIANO BACJAO UYGUANGCO filed complaint for partition, alleging that he is an raised in secrecy and without the legitimate family being aware of their
illegitimate child who was left out of the partition made: existence. Who then can be sure of their filiation but the parents
• Born to APOLINARIO UYGUANGCO and ANASTACIO BACJAO themselves? But suppose the child claiming to be the illegitimate child of a
• At 15, moved to father's house, at urging of father and his family certain person is not really the child of the latter? The putative parent
• His education was supported by father. should thus be given the opportunity to affirm or deny the child’s filiation,
• He uses the surname UYGUANGCO w/o objection from his father or his family. and this, he or she cannot do if he or she is already dead.
He even used it in his high school diploma -the NCC provisions on which Graciano relied on are amended by FC, thus, the said
• He was assigned, w/o objection from the rest of the family, as the storekeeper actions for recognition are now barred
in the Uyguangco's store, which is strictly a family business -his filiation cannot be established collaterally
• He even shares profits of the copra business of the family
• He became director of the Alu and Sons Dev't Corporation, a family
corporation
• In addendum: he was given a share in deceased father's estate
-MTD: Graciano could not prove filiation, applying A278, NCC:
• Graciano did not have any of the 4 documents required under NCC to prove
filiation (no record of birth, will, statement before a court of record or
authentic writing)
• Graciano's action for recognition already prescribed: must have brought
during the lifetime of the putative father
• Graciano's case does not fall under the exception to the prescriptive period,
as stated in A285: Not a minor at the time Apolinario died, nor are there
documents unknown to them which were only found after death of Apolinario
-TC: Denied MTD
-petition for review: such complaint for partition is actually an action for recognition
as an illegitimate child, which, being already barred, is a clear attempt to
circumvent the provisions of the NCC
-Graciano claims that even if he did not have any of the documents required, he
was"in continuous possession of the status of a child of his alleged father by the
direct acts of the latter or of his family."

WON an illegitimate child should be allowed to prove such illegitimate

filiation when the putative father is already dead? NO
-here, FC used, which became effective August 3, 1988 (probably, the petition was
filed when FC became effective).
-to prove filiation under FC, establish any of the ff:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:

10 | S p e c i a l Proceedings_Balbastro_Cha Mendoza (assignment No. 11-12)