P

a
g
e
1




A Compilation of Court Papers

Cruz, Jeremiah
Napadao, Charmaine
Singson, Melanio
University of the Cordilleras
College of Law


P
a
g
e
2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
CALAUAG, QUEZON BRANCH 63

ROSENDA PENIERO MAULAWIN,
Petitioner,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. __________
For: Writ of Amparo

THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF STAFF,
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES;
MAJOR GENERAL EDUARDO DEL
ROSARIO, COMMANDER OF THE 2
ND

INFANTRY DIVISION OF THE
PHILIPPINE ARMY, CAMP MATEO
CAPINPIN, TANAY, RIZAL; COL.
OLIVER MAQUILING COMMANDING
OFFICER, 85
TH
INFANTRY DIVISION,
PHILIPPINE ARMY, ARMED FORCES
OF THE PHILIPPINES BRGY. VILLA
PRINCIPE, GUMACA, QUEZON,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION

PETITIONER, by counsel, most respectfully states, THAT:
1. Petitioner is of legal age, married, with residence and postal address at
Brgy. Sabang II, Calauag, Quezon; whereas respondent THE SECRETARY OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE holds office at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, Metro Manila;
respondent CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES likewise
holds office at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon city, Metro Manila; respondent Major General
Eduardo Del Rosario, Commander of the 2
nd
Infantry Division of the Philippine Army,
holds his command at Camp Mateo Capinpin, Tanay, Rizal; respondent Col. Oliver
Maquiling holds his command at 85
th
Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army, Brgy. Villa
Principe, Gumaca, Quezon, where in the said principal office addresses these
respondents may all be served with summons, writs, and other processes of this
Honorable Court;

P
a
g
e
3

2. Respondent Col. Oliver Maquiling is the commanding officer with
logistical command and supervision over the military personnel of 85
th
Infantry
Battalion, Philippine Army that holds fort in Brgy. Villa Principe, Gumaca, Quezon;

3. Sometime on February 5, 2012 at approximately 8:00 a.m., petitioner
received reliable information that her sister Miguela Peniero, of legal age, single, with
residence and postal address at Gen. Luna, Bondoc Peninsula, Quezon was arrested
with the connivance, knowledge and command of all the respondents by the elements
of the Joint Forces of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Philippine National
Police based in Quezon Province as shall be described in detail below;
4. Petitioner aside from what she gathered from the previous information
read from a certain publication that according to respondent Major General Eduardo
Del Rosario, Commander of the 2
nd
Infantry Division of the Philippine Army, they were
able to apprehend and arrest the said Miguela Peniero and several others thru the
201
st
Brigade based in Guinayangan, Quezon;
5. With that information, petitioner and her immediate siblings and
relatives immediately asked the assistance of Karapatan-Quezon, a Non-Government
Organization (NGO) based in Quezon Province to look for their sister, Miguela Peniero,
of her possible whereabouts and inquire about her personal safety especially at/within
the military camps within Quezon Province;
6. First, we went to the 201
st
Brigade in Brgy. San Roque, Calauag, Quezon
at around 10:00 a.m. on February 5, 2012. We were given a run around. Finally one
regular soldier who identified himself as Abarrientos told us that their brigade does
not have the custody of our sister Miguela Peniero and vehemently denied that the 21
st

Brigade has nothing to do with the apprehension of the said Miguela Peniero;
7. Thereafter at around 12:00 noon of February 5, 2012, we went to the
85
th
Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army in Brgy. San Isidro, Lopez, Quezon to look for
our sister Miguela Peniero. Upon reaching the 85
th
Infantry Battalion, Philippine
Army, Brgy. San Isidro, Lopez, Quezon we were not allowed to enter the said brigade
command. We were made to stay at the gate and told us to wait for instructions. The
soldiers who received us did not want to be identified and while we were carrying

P
a
g
e
4

photo-camera, we were prohibited from taking pictures. The said unidentified soldiers
of the 85
th
Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army based in Lopez, Quezon likewise denied
that they have with them our sister Miguela Peniero. We consulted our legal counsel
Atty. Frumencio E. Pulgar through the telephone so that he can talk to the soldiers
who were present at the military camp and in the process assuage our growing
apprehension, but the soldiers refused to entertain the queries of our said legal
counsel causing herein petitioner and Miguela Peniero damage and prejudice.
8. We were already apprehensive, anxious, and fearful of the physical safety
of Miguela Peniero as it was getting late and no confirmation just as yet as to her
whereabouts. The Karapatan-Quezon advised us to go to Brgy. Kalantipayan, Lopez,
Quezon were Miguela Peniero was arrested, apprehended and caught in order for us to
determine what exactly happened through the Barangay Officials thereof.
9. When we reached at the exact spot where Miguela Peniero was arrested
in Brgy. Kalantipayan, Lopez, Quezon, we were able to talk to some Philippine Army
Soldiers who were still present and gathered there. We talked to them and inquired
about the whereabouts of petitioners sister Miguela Peniero but they ignored us and
even denied that they have in their custody the said Miguela Peniero. They also
denied that they arrested Miguela Peniero;
10. We asked around from the residents of Brgy. Kalantipayan, Lopez,
Quezon but they appeared frightened, apprehensive and fearful of the implication of
giving information so they refused to be asked as to the whereabouts and the arrest of
petitioners sister Miguela Peniero;
11. After repairing to Brgy. Kalantipayan, Lopez, Quezon, we went to the City
of Lucena at around 5:00 p.m. We went to Camp Guillermo Nakar, Brgy. Gulang-
gulang, Lucena City while my other siblings and my spouse went to the Office of the
Philippine National Police, Lopez, Quezon and the Battalion Headquarters in Brgy.
Villa Principe, Gumaca, Quezon but the authorities therein failed and refused and
continue to fail and refuse to personally allow us access to herein petitioners sister
Miguela Peniero, causing us extreme prejudice;
12. When we reached Lucena City, Quezon, we were told to stay at the gate.
When the sentry thereat was informed about our intention to inquire about the

P
a
g
e
5

whereabouts of Miguela Peniero, he clammed up and refused to give further
information. The sentry and an unidentified officer of the Philippine Army said
nothing and they all said was that they do not have with them petitioners sister
Miguela Peniero. If our intention is to talk or personally seek audience with the PNP
Provincial Director, we were also advised that it was no opportune time because it was
a Sunday, copy of petitioner Rosenda Peniero Maulawins Affidavit is hereto attached
as ANNEX A and made part hereof.
13. To date or after assiduous inquiry thereafter and notwithstanding
persistent efforts on the part of the herein petitioner and relatives to look into the
whereabouts and personal safety of of Miguela Peniero the same remain uncertain on
account of enforced disappearance caused by respondents en conniventia and
therefore petitioner seeks succour by the privilege of Writ of Amparo
1
, the respondents
should be ordered to produce the body of Miguela Peniero and to release her to the
custody of her sister Rosenda Peniero Maulawin among other available reliefs;
14. Miguela Peniero enjoys untrammelled right to life, liberty and security
guaranteed by the Constitution. Petitioner has shown preponderatingly that her sister
Miguela Peniero is in the custody of respondents in violation of his Constitutional
rights hence she is entitled to the privilege of the Writ of Amparo
2


1
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides for the following causes of action, viz:
Section 1. Petition. - The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. (emphasis
supplied)
Sections 17 and 18, on the other hand, provide for the degree of proof required, viz:

Sec. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. - The parties shall establish their claims by
substantial evidence. xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 18. Judgment. - ... If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court
shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege
shall be denied. (emphases supplied)

Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF
STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RAYMOND MANALO AND REYNALDO
MANALO [G.R. No. 180906, October 07, 2008]

2
On October 24, 2007, the Court promulgated the Amparo Rule "in light of the prevalence of extralegal killing
and enforced disappearances." It was an exercise for the first time of the Court's expanded power to
promulgate rules to protect our people's constitutional rights, which made its maiden appearance in the 1987
Constitution in response to the Filipino experience of the martial law regime. As the Amparo Rule was intended

P
a
g
e
6


to address the intractable problem of "extralegal killings" and "enforced disappearances," its coverage, in its
present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. "Extralegal killings" are "killings
committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings." On the other
hand, "enforced disappearances" are "attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or
abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct
or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the
person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the
protection of law."
The writ of amparo originated in Mexico. "Amparo" literally means "protection" in Spanish. In 1837, de
Tocqueville's Democracy in America became available in Mexico and stirred great interest. Its descripti on of
the practice of judicial review in the U.S. appealed to many Mexican jurists. One of them, Manuel Crescencio
Rejn, drafted a constitutional provision for his native state, Yucatan, which granted judges the power to
protect all persons in the enjoyment of their constitutional and legal rights. This idea was incorporated into the
national constitution in 1847, viz:
The federal courts shall protect any inhabitant of the Republic in the exercise and preservation of
those rights granted to him by this Constitution and by laws enacted pursuant hereto, against attacks by the
Legislative and Executive powers of the federal or state governments, limiting themselves to granting
protection in the specific case in litigation, making no general declaration concerning the statute or regulation
that motivated the violation.
Since then, the protection has been an important part of Mexican constitutionalism. If, after hearing,
the judge determines that a constitutional right of the petitioner is being violated, he orders the official, or the
official's superiors, to cease the violation and to take the necessary measures to restore the petitioner to the
full enjoyment of the right in question. Amparo thus combines the principles of judicial review derived from the
U.S. with the limitations on judicial power characteristic of the civil law tradition which prevails in Mexico. It
enables courts to enforce the constitution by protecting individual rights in particular cases, but prevents them
from using this power to make law for the entire nation.
The writ of amparo then spread throughout the Western Hemisphere, gradually evolving into various
forms, in response to the particular needs of each country. It became, in the words of a justice of the Mexican
Federal Supreme Court, one piece of Mexico's self-attributed "task of conveying to the world's legal heritage
that institution which, as a shield of human dignity, her own painful history conceived." What began as a
protection against acts or omissions of public authorities in violation of constitutional rights later evolved for
several purposes: (1) amparo libertad for the protection of personal freedom, equivalent to the habeas corpus
writ; (2) amparo contra leyes for the judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes; (3) amparo casacion for
the judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of a judicial decision; (4) amparo administrativo for the
judicial review of administrative actions; and (5) amparo agrario for the protection of peasants' rights derived
from the agrarian reform process.
In Latin American countries, except Cuba, the writ of amparo has been constitutionally adopted to
protect against human rights abuses especially committed in countries under military juntas. In general, these
countries adopted an all-encompassing writ to protect the whole gamut of constitutional rights, including
socio-economic rights. Other countries like Colombia, Chile, Germany and Spain, however, have chosen to limit
the protection of the writ of amparo only to some constitutional guarantees or fundamental rights.
In the Philippines, while the 1987 Constitution does not explicitly provide for the writ of amparo,
several of the above amparo protections are guaranteed by our charter. The second paragraph of Article VIII,
Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the Grave Abuse Clause, provides for the judicial power "to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." The Clause accords a similar general protection to
human rights extended by the amparo contra leyes, amparo casacion, and amparo administrativo. Amparo
libertad is comparable to the remedy of habeas corpus found in several provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
The Clause is an offspring of the U.S. common law tradition of judicial review, which finds its roots in the 1803
case of Marbury v. Madison.

P
a
g
e
7

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that by the privilege of the Writ of
Amparo, the respondents be ordered to: 1) produce the body of Miguela
Peniero and to release her to the custody of her sister Rosenda Peniero
Maulawin; 2) the Court issue the writ commanding therein respondents to
make a verified return within the period provided by law and containing the
specific matters required by law; (3) petitioner be granted the interim reliefs
allowed by the Amparo Rule and all other reliefs prayed for in the petition but
not covered by the Amparo Rule; (4) the Court, after hearing, render judgment
as required in Sec. 18 of the Amparo Rule; and such other reliefs, just and
equitable, are likewise prayed for.
Makati City, Metro Manila for Gumaca, Quezon. March 30, 2012.


ROSENDA PENIERO MAULAWIN
Petitioner

While constitutional rights can be protected under the Grave Abuse Clause through remedies of
injunction or prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and a petition for habeas corpus under Rule 102,
these remedies may not be adequate to address the pestering problem of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances. However, with the swiftness required to resolve a petition for a writ of amparo through
summary proceedings and the availability of appropriate interim and permanent reliefs under the Amparo
Rule, this hybrid writ of the common law and civil law traditions - borne out of the Latin American and
Philippine experience of human rights abuses - offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances and threats thereof. The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary
proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it
is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages
requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will
require full and exhaustive proceedings.
The writ of amparo serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances. It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the
commission of these offenses; it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as
it will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action. In the long run, the goal of both the
preventive and curative roles is to deter the further commission of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.
In the case at bar, respondents initially filed an action for "Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary
Restraining Order" to stop petitioners and/or their officers and agents from depriving the respondents of their
right to liberty and other basic rights on August 23, 2007, prior to the promulgation of the Amparo Rule. They
also sought ancillary remedies including Protective Custody Orders, Appointment of Commissioner, Inspection
and Access Orders and other legal and equitable remedies under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987
Constitution and Rule 135, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. When the Amparo Rule came into effect on October
24, 2007, they moved to have their petition treated as an amparo petition as it would be more effective and
suitable to the circumstances of the Manalo brothers' enforced disappearance. The Court granted their motion
(Ibid.)

P
a
g
e
8


Assisted by:

SENTRO ng GABAY LEGAL sa QUEZON
Sitio Paang Bundok, Brgy. Sta. Maria,
Calauag, Quezon
Telefax No.: (042) 301-7096

- and -


ESCOBIDO AND PULGAR LAW OFFICES
2
nd
Floor, Africa Bldg., #2041 Edison cor. Aragon Sts.,
Brgy. San Isidro, Makati City, MM
Telefax Nos.: 887-3120 / 887-3121
Website : sonnypulgar.com
katataspulong.blogspot.com
E- mail: feplaw@yahoo.com


by:
FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR
Roll of Attorneys No. 31068
IBP No.: 879818 / 01-06-12/ Quezon Province
PTR No.: 3181233 / 01-09-12 / Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. III - 0020443 / April 14, 2011

Republic of the Philippines )
Makati City, Metro Manila ) s.s.
x-------------------------------x

V E R I F I C A T I O N / C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I, ROSENDA PENIERO MAULAWIN, of legal age, married to Felix Balaston,
with residence and postal address at Brgy. Sabang II, Calauag, Quezon, declare under
oath, THAT:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. I have read and understood the said Petition and all the allegations
therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic
records;

3. I have not commenced any other petition or proceeding involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof
or any other tribunal or agency;

4. To the best of my knowledge, no similar Petition is pending in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal agency;

5. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been
filed or is pending before said courts or tribunal, I hereby undertake to promptly
inform this Honorable Court of that fact within five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this ___
th
day of March,
2012 in Makati City, Metro Manila.


ROSENDA PENIERO MAULAWIN
A f f i a n t


P
a
g
e
9

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___
th
day of March, 2012 at
the City of Makati, Metro Manila, affiant:

is personally known to the notary public;

was identified by notary public through Competent Evidence of Identity as defined
by Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, thru the presentation/production of the ff:

Drivers License No.
________________
SSS ID No. _________________
GSIS ID No. _________________
TIN ID No. _________________
Passport No. _______________
Company I.D.
________________
Com. Tax Cert. No.
______________ issued on
___________ issued at
_________________.


Doc. No. _______;
Page No. _______;
Book No._______;
Series of 2012.
FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 3181233
issued on January 09, 2012
at Makati City Metro Manila
TIN No. 106201485
MCLE Compliance No. III - 0020443




P
a
g
e
1
0

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
DESIGNATED FAMILY COURT
Sixth Judicial Region
Branch___, Kalibo, Aklan


IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION Sp. Proc. Case No.___
OF THE MINOR MARY ANN LAGUNBAY,


SPOUSES LEWIS MORTALLA AND
SALVADORA TORTUYA MORTALLA,

Petitioners.
x-----------------------------x

PETITIONERS, through counsel, before this Honorable Court
most respectfully state:
1. That petitioners are lawful husband and wife, of legal
ages, Filipino citizens, and with postal address at
McKinley St., Poblacion, Makato, Aklan, where they may
be served with summons and other court processes;
2. That the said spouses desire to adopt minor child, Mary
Ann Lagunbay, six (6) years of age, who was born in
Tibiawan, Makato, Aklan, on December 10, 2005.
Herewith as Annex A is a photostatic copy of the

P
a
g
e
1
1

certificate of live birth of the minor child, Mary Ann
Lagunbay, and is made integral part hereof;
3. That the father of the child is unknown being the
illegitimate son of Marites G. Lagunbay, Filipino, of legal
age, single, and is residing at Tibiawan, Makato, Aklan;
4. That Marites G. Lagunbay has consented to the adoption
of the minor child, Mary Ann Lagunbay, as shown by an
instrument executed and signed by her, a copy of which
is attached to this petition as Annex B and made an
integral part hereof;
5. That the herein petitioners would like to give the minor
child good education and a secured future and to erase
the stigma of his illegitimacy;
6. That herein petitioners, especially Salvadora T. Mortalla,
have known the minor child from birth and have
developed a kind of parental love and care for the child;
7. That herein petitioners are childless and can very well
support and can provide education to the minor child
Mary Ann Lagunbay;
8. That this adoption will serve the best interests and well-
being of the minor child Mary Ann Lagunbay.



PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Court, after due notice, publication and hearing, would
render judgment to the effect that henceforth, the minor child Mary
Ann Lagunbay be free from all legal obligations of obedience and

P
a
g
e
1
2

maintenance with respect to his natural parent, and be, to all legal
intents and purposes, the child of the petitioners, and that the
surname of the child of the petitioners, and that the surname of the
child of the petitioners, and that the surname of the child be
changed to Mary Ann Tortuya Mortalla, which is the surname of the
petitioners.

Petitioners likewise pray for such other and further relief or
reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem proper and just in the
premises.

Iloilo City, February 17, 2011.

ATTY. HENNESSY KESHIA T.
MATIONG
Counsel for the Plaintiff
N. Tesorero St., Poblacion, Makato,
Aklan
IBP No. 5678* Kalibo, Aklan* 27
Sept. 2013
PTR No.9101112 *Kalibo, Aklan*28
Sept. 2013
Roll of Atty. No.11281988*Page496*
BookX11
MCLE Compliance Exempted


VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE AGAINST NON-FORUM
SHOPPING


P
a
g
e
1
3


We, spouses Lewis Mortalla and Salvadora Tortuya Mortalla ,
of legal age, Filipino and a resident of McKinley St., Poblacion,
Makato, Aklan, after having been sworn to in accordance with the
law, hereby depose and say that:

1. We are the petitioners in this instant petition;
2. We caused the personal preparation of the foregoing
petition;
3. We have read the same and the contents thereof are true
and correct of our personal knowledge;
4. That we have not theretofore commenced any action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any tribunal action or
proceeding is pending in the above-stated Courts or to
any other tribunal or agency; that if there is any other
action or proceeding which is either pending or may have
been terminated other than the above-mentioned, we
must state the status thereof; and that if we should
thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, we
undertake to report the same within five (5) days
therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original
pleading and sworn certificate contemplated herein have
been filed.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, we hereby affix our signatures this
17
th
day of March 2012, Makato, Aklan, Philippines.


LEWIS MORTALLA SALVADORA T. MORTALLA
Affiant Affiant




P
a
g
e
1
4

SUBSCIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 17
th
day of March
2012, in the Municipality of Makato after petitioners SPOUSES
LEWIS MORTALLA and SALVADORA T. MORTALLA showed to me
their Drivers Licenses numbered 1234567 and 7654321
respectively, issued on January 6, 2011 and issued in Kalibo,
Aklan.



ATTY. HENNESSY KESHIA T.
MATIONG
Notary Public
N. Tesorero St., Poblacion, Makato,
Aklan
IBP No. 5678* Kalibo, Aklan* 27
Sept. 2013
PTR No.9101112 *Kalibo, Aklan*28
Sept. 2013
Roll of Atty. No.11281988*
Page496*BookX11
MCLE Compliance Exempted
Commission No. 1234* Until Dec.
31, 2012



Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 2012



P
a
g
e
1
5

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
First Judicial Region
Branch 32,Baguio City


In the Matter of Settlement of Estate
of Nanding Martin


Dencxo Martin Sp. Proc. Case No. ______
Petitioner

Summary Settlement of
Estate of Small Value

X ------------------------------------------X



PETITION

COMES NOW the petitioner by the undersigned attorney, and unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully avers;

(1) That the petitioner, a resident of #111 Hillside Baguio City is the son of
the deceased, NANDING MARTIN, who died intestate on March 15,
1999;

(2) That the said deceased, Nanding Martin, left real estate located in #21
Aurora Hill, Baguio City, the gross value of which does not exceed TEN
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 10, 000.00) as evidenced by the certificate of
assessed value of said property, issued by Registry of Deeds of Baguio
City, hereto attached as ANNEX A and made an integral part of this
petition;

(3) That the following person of all age are the sole, lawful, and exclusive
heirs of the said deceased NANDING MARTIN.

(4) That the deceased left no debts;

(5) That it is desired that the estate of the deceased NANDING MARTIN, be
settled summarily and apportioned and divided among the above-
mentioned heirs, without the appointment of an executor or
administrator.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed;

(a) That, after notice to all interested parties, and due publication in
anewspaper of general circulation of this petition, and after due hearing
in accordance with law, this Honorable Court proceed summarily,
without the appointment of an executor or administrator, to apportions,

P
a
g
e
1
6

divide and award the above estate among the lawful heirs of the
deceased, after the payment of just debts;


(b) That the costs of these proceedings be apportioned among the several
heirs in accordance with the value of the estate that may be awarded to
each respectively.

(c) That such further orders be made as may deemed just and equitable.


BAGUIO CITY, Philippines, 2010.















LIBUNAO, LEARNED HAND, CORDOZA AND ASSOCIATES
LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Rm. 111 La Azotea Bldg.
Session Rd., Baguio City



By:



Atty. DENNIS G. LIBUNAO
PTR No. 1762539; 6-06-06; B.C
IBP No. 17620; 6-72-08; Mla
Roll No. 56789
Baguio City