Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
LF
I.S.: 2015-1936
For: Estafa
LF
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P.LIM, G.R. Nos. 168992-93 The adoptee is
considered a legitimate child of the adopter with all the rights of a legitimate child such as: xxx (3) to be
entitled to the legitime and other successional rights.
2
Rules of Court, Rule 130 Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. The reputation or
tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members,
may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity.
3
Conception vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. G.R. No. 123450 a record of birth is prima facie evidence of the
facts contained therein.
4
Republic of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 97906 The act of adoption fixes a status, viz., that
of parent and child. Additionally under the Family Code Art. 189. Adoption shall have the following effects:
(1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopters and both shall
acquire the reciprocal rights and obligations arising from the relationship of parent and child, including the
right of the adopted to use the surname of the adopters
5
Republic of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 97906 Concordantly, we have heretofore held that
a change of name does not define or effect a change in one's existing family relations or in the rights and duties
flowing therefrom. It does not alter one's legal capacity, civil status or citizenship; what is altered is only the
name.
LF
Rules of Court, Rule 130 Section 24. Proof of official record. The record of public
documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy
7
Article 1003(If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased) and Article 961, 978, 985, 988, and 995 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines
8
Rule 74 of the Rules of Court Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. If the
decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or
legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may without securing letters of administration,
divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the
register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition.
9
R.A. 8552 Section 17. Legitimacy. The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate son/daughter of the
adopter(s) for all intents and purposes and as such is entitled to all the rights and obligations provided by law to
legitimate sons/daughters born to them without discrimination of any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled
to love, guidance, and support in keeping with the means of the family.
10
Carlos vs Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922 The presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children
of the deceased precludes succession by collateral relatives.
11
Cua vs Vargas, G.R. No. 156536 The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding.
12
Avelino vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115181 The heirs succeed immediately to all of the rights and
properties of the deceased at the moment of the latter's death. Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, allows
heirs to divide the estate among themselves without need of delay and risks of being dissipated. When a person
dies without leaving pending obligations, his heirs, are not required to submit the property for judicial
administration, nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by the court.
13
Madrigal vs Department of Justice, G.R. No. 168903
LF
Neither was there any evidence of bad faith to entitle the complainants to
damages. No criminal liability is incurred for no felony was committed14
and no cause of action exists which will give the complainants grounds for
a civil action because no right existed in favor of them15.
11. The allegations in paragraph 13 of the complaint-affidavit are specifically
denied because Abraham Tolentino was unaware of the extra-judicial
settlement because he was abroad at the time it was executed.
12. The allegations in paragraph 14 of the complaint-affidavit since there was
no crime committed because an essential element in all kinds of Estafa is
that damage or prejudice is suffered by the offended party, the
complainants in this case did not suffer any damage or prejudice because
they do not have any right to the property which was the subject of the
extrajudicial settlement.16
13. We executed this counter-affidavit to attest to the truth of the mentioned
facts and to impugn the crime of estafa which are being charged against us.
City of Lucena, September 7, 2015.
(SGD.) Abraham V. Tolentino
Drivers License: 131313
Issued on: January 30, 2015
Expires on: January 30, 2016
Affiant
Signed and Sworn to before me this September 7, 2015. I hereby certify that I
examined the affiant and that they understood and voluntarily executed this counteraffidavit.
(SGD.) Kitem D. Kadatuan Jr.
Assistant Prosecutor
14
People of the Philippines vs Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762 the elements of felonies in general are: (1) there
must be an act or omission; (2) the act or omission must be punishable under the Revised Penal Code; and (3)
the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of deceit or fault.
15
Relucio vs Lopez, G.R. No. 138497 The elements of a cause of action are: (1) a right in favor of the
plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; 2) an obligation on the part of the
named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant
in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff
for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.
16
Madrigal vs Department of Justice, G.R. No. 168903
LF