Special Proceedings

SY 2019-2020
Semestral Examination

Instructions: Read the questions carefully before answering. Be brief in your answers but
explain well when required. Answer each question immediately below it and email this back to
me (rgsongco@syciplaw.com and cc: mvvvillamor@syciplaw.com) with your answers before
3:00 p.m. today. A five (5) point deduction in the total score will be imposed for every 5 minute
delay after 3:00 p.m. in in my receipt.

1. (a) What are the requisites or circumstances which must be present in order to have an
escheat proceeding? (5 pts.)

(b) Knowing what are the requisites or factual circumstances which must be present for
an escheat proceeding to be possible, can you think of a situation when an escheat
proceeding may still be subsequently filed even when the decedent has died testate, i.e.,
leaving a will? If yes, what would the circumstances have to be for that to happen? (5
pts.)

2. Jose De Jesus, a 25-year old Filipino and Philippine resident, filed a petition for probate
of the last will and testament of his deceased father, David, with the Regional Trial Court
of Makati, where his father was residing at the time of his death. In the will, David left
all of his estate to Jose (no other bequests or legacies) and expressly disinherited Jose’s
older sister, Isabel, because the latter supposedly maltreated and refused, without reason,
to support David in his old age. The will complies fully with all of the requisites of the
Civil Code for a notarial will and for disinheritance. Isabel filed an opposition to the
petition for probate contending that Jose is not actually his brother, but the child of their
former yaya with their neighbor’s former family driver.

(a) If you were Jose’s lawyer, and considering these facts alone, how will you
argue that Isabel’s opposition cannot prevent probate and allowance of the
will? (5 pts.)

(b) If you were Isabel’s lawyer, and again solely considering the facts above,
how will you argue that Isabel’s contention as to Jose’s supposed
parentage is a ground to disallow probate? (5 pts.)

3. (a) Benjamin, a 10-year old boy, lost his mother in an accident four years ago. His
maternal aunt filed a petition for guardianship over him on the ground that Benjamin’s
father has remarried and that his second wife was a former waitress who already has two
children from two different men with whom she had no prior marital relations. Based
solely on the facts and the grounds for guardianship, will the petition prosper? (5 pts.)
 2

(b) Would your answer be different if the woman Benjamin’s father married was a
lawyer with no children from previous relationships? (5 pts.)

4. Go back to the facts of number 2 above. If there was no provision in David’s will which
expressly disinherited Isabel:

(a) How would you, as Isabel’s lawyer, advise him in respect of opposing the
petition for probate? What ground will you advise her to invoke? (5 pts.)

(b) What would be the legal consequence and/or effect on the probate
proceeding if you succeed in the opposition you advised Isabel to file?
(5 pts.)

5. Julian, a dual citizen of England and the Philippines, died testate leaving real properties
in both countries. His sister, Juliana, filed a petition for probate of Julian’s notarial will,
which he executed in London, England, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
where Julian owned a subdivision lot. In her petition, Juliana prayed that she be
appointed as executrix of Julian’s estate in accordance with the provision of the will
naming her as such. Their other brother, Julito, opposed the petition and moved for its
dismissal, contending that the petition cannot be taken cognizance of by the Quezon City
RTC because the will was executed outside the Philippines.

(a) Is Julito correct? Explain. (5 pts.)

(b) If the will had already been admitted to probate by a probate court in
London, can Juliana initiate another probate proceeding in the Philippines?
If she can, what will she need to allege and prove? (5 pts.)

6. Anselmo filed an action for damages against Estrella based on injuries he sustained
resulting from a vehicular accident caused by Estrella’s alleged negligence. While trial
was on-going, Estrella died from a vehicular accident. The administrator of Estrella’s
estate moved for the dismissal of the case arguing that Anselmo should now file his claim
in the estate settlement proceeding covering Estrella’s estate because it is a claim which
does not survive the death of Estrella. The trial court found merit in the submission of
the administrator and issued an order dismissing the case as a consequence of Estrella’s
death.

(a) Was the trial court correct? Explain. (5 pts.)

(b) If what Anselmo filed was an action to enforce Estrellas civil liability
arising from the criminal offense of reckless imprudence resulting in
physical injury, would your answer be different? Explain. (5 pts.)

7. Martin Santos was charged with the crime of robbery. At his trial, Martin was present
but his counsel sent a representative to inform the court that he is unable to attend
 3

because his house had been broken into by thieves the night before and was having the
matter investigated by the police authorities. The prosecution objected to a postponement
claiming that the trial had already been postponed on two previous occasions because of
the absence of Martin’s counsel. The record shows that, in fact, the trial had been
postponed twice previously on motion of Martin’s counsel because of illness for which
he had presented verified medical certificates. The judge, however, denied the motion for
postponement and ruled to proceed with the trial. The prosecution presented its evidence
against Martin without the latter’s lawyer present and without appointing a counsel de
oficio for Martin. The judge then rendered a decision convicting Jonathan based primarily
on the testimonies and evidence presented by the prosecution. Jonathan was then sent to
prison. His appeal was dismissed because his lawyer failed to file his appeal brief on
time without valid justification.

(a) Jonathan retained you as new counsel. What legal remedy will you advise
Jonathan to pursue? What would be your reasons or grounds for
recommending that legal remedy? (5 pts.)

(b) Would a second conviction for another offense for which Jonathan is
currently serving a prison term affect your advice? How? (5 pts.)

8. A relative of Nicandro Cruz filed a petition for habeas corpus against Nicandro’s
employer, a wealthy and influential businessman. The relative alleged in his petition that
the employer was allegedly detaining Nicandro against his will because the employer
found that Nicandro was having an amorous relationship with the employer’s only
daughter. The court issued a peremptory writ and Nicandro’ employer filed a Return
within the period provided in the writ asserting that he is not detaining Nicandro. The
employer alleged that he had assigned Nicandro to La Union where the employer also
had a house and business establishment, and that Nicandro has gone on absence without
leave or permission. The employer finally stated that he does not know where Nicandro
presently is. Nicandro’s relative did not file a Reply to controvert the assertions of
Nicandro’s employer in the Return. The court then rendered a decision dismissing the
petition ruling that the assertions made by Nicandro’s employer in his Return are deemed
admitted as true based on a prima facie presumption provided under Rule 102, Sec. 13,
and Nicandro’s relative failed to controvert or rebut that presumption.

(a) Is the court correct? Explain. (5 pts.)

(b) Would your answer be different if Nicandro’s employer was a police

general? Explain. (5 pts.)

9. Ruben Diaz, a 35-year old fisherman, was arrested without a warrant by elements of the
Philippine National Police in his home province. He was taken to a police camp and
detained there. Ruben’s family filed a petition for habeas corpus and the court issued a
peremptory writ commanding the police authorities to present Ruben before it and
explain the basis for his detention. The police chief of the province where Ruben was
 4

allegedly arrested filed a Return within the period provided in the writ explaining that
they made a warrantless arrest based on a complaint made by one of Ruben’s townmates
that Ruben supposedly raped and killed the townmate’s daughter. The Return also stated
that Ruben was subjected to inquest proceedings and a criminal information was filed in
court the day after his arrest and that the court had issued a warrant of arrest upon receipt
of the information. The Return further stated that subsequent to the issuance of the
warrant of arrest, Ruben was ordered released because the complainant filed with the
court an affidavit stating that he had mistaken Ruben for the real culprit and that Ruben
was actually out fishing at the time the crime was allegedly perpetrated. The Return
finally alleged that Ruben was released from police custody pursuant to the court’s order
although his release papers appeared irregularly prepared. Ruben, however, could not be
located and his present whereabouts are unknown. Ruben’s family did not file a Reply to
respond to or rebut the allegations of the Return.

On the basis of the Return, and after hearing the parties, the court dismissed the petition
for habeas corpus ruling that Ruben’s detention, while initially illegal, became legal with
the issuance of the warrant of arrest, and that the petition, in any event, became moot
with the release of Ruben from detention – all as alleged in the Return which was not
disputed by Ruben’s family.

(a) Was the court correct in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus?
Explain. (5 pts.)

(b) The lawyer of Ruben’s family advised that the court was correct in
dismissing the petition for habeas corpus because Henry was already
released from detention. He further advised that there was no other
legal remedy available to them and that they should just go to the
Commission on Human Rights for assistance, and perhaps also seek
assistance from the media to find out Ruben’s whereabouts. Ruben’s family
came to you for a second opinion. What would you advise them? Explain.
(5 pts.)

10. Pangkat Kalinisan, a non-government organization, filed a petition for writ of kalikasan
against XYZ Minerals Corporation (the “Company”) in the Court of Appeals alleging
that the Company was dumping mine tailings, i.e., the waste product from processing ore
that are extracted from the mines, into the neighboring lake which served as fishing
grounds for two adjoining provinces. The petitioning organization further alleged that
the mine tailings being dumped into the lake were releasing toxic chemicals which were
killing off the fish in the lake and even affecting the health of the people who eat fish
caught in the lake. The Company filed a Return denying categorically that it was
dumping mine tailings into the lake. The Company asserted that its mine tailings were
being dumped into a large pit within their area of operation, that the pit was isolated by
concrete dams on all four sides, and that government-approved engineering measures
have been put in place to assure that there was no leak of hazardous chemicals into areas
outside of the pit. The Company submitted affidavits from mining engineers certifying
that the mine tailings were being dumped only in the mine tailings pit. It also attached
 5

engineering plans and studies showing the design and integrity of the dams, as well as
scientific surveys by both the Company’s engineers and the Provincial environmental
officers showing that there were no leaks coming out of the pit which have been detected.
The Company also submitted the affidavits of the authors of these documentary evidence.
On the other hand, the petitioning organization presented photographs of fish kill
showing hundreds of dead fish found floating in the lake as well as scientific surveys
showing depleted levels of oxygen and high levels of mercury in the water. The
photographer who took the photos of the fish kill was presented and the authors of the
scientific surveys were also presented.

At the conclusion of trial, the petitioning organization invoked the precautionary

principle. It argued that there was a scientific uncertainty as to the cause of the presence
of toxic chemicals in the waters of the lake, and that in the absence of clear evidence as to
the cause of the water contamination, it can only be concluded that the Company is
dumping mine tailings into the lake and that this is the cause for the presence of the toxic
chemicals If you were the Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals who has been
assigned as the ponente of the case, how will you propose to resolve this specific issue,
i.e., will you apply the precautionary principle and make the findings proposed by the
petitioner? (10 pts.)

--Nothing follows.--