I.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL

A. Rule 72 Section 1 Subject matter of special proceedings. 1. Settlement of estate of deceased persons 2. Escheat 3. Guardianship and custody of children 4. Trustees 5. Adoption 6. Recession and revocation of adoption 7. Hospitalization of insane persons 8. Habeas corpus 9. Change of name 10. Voluntary dissolution of corporations 11. Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children 12. Constitution and family home 13. Declaration of absence and death 14. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry OTHERS: 15. Liquidation proceeding 16. Advancement of Real Property 17. Corporations Rehabilitation 18. Arbitration under the contract or admission HAGANS V. WIZLIZENUS An ACTION is a formal demand of ones right in a court of justice in the manner prescribed the court of by the law. It is a method of applying legal remedies according to definite established rules. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. No formal pleadings are required, unless the statute expressly so provides. The remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion. B. Sec. 1, Rule 3, Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2000) ROMBE V. ASIATRUST rehabilitation is a special proceeding which is summary and non-adversarial in nature. C. Sec. 1, Insolvency Law D. Sec. 22, RA 876 Arbitration under a contract or submission shall be deemed a special proceeding, of which the court specified in the contract or submission, or if none be specified, the CFI for the province or city in which one of the parties resides or is doing business, or in which the arbitration was held, shall have jurisdiction. Any application to the court, or a judge thereof, hereunder shall be made provided for the making and hearing of motions, except as otherwise herein expressly provided. E. Special Proceedings in RA 8639 (Family Courts) and in new laws affecting applicability of Rules of Court

M M B B E | Page 1 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

II.

SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE RULES

Rule 72 Applicability of Rules

A. Sec. 2 in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings. REPUBLIC V. MADRONA the purpose of the petition for declaration of presumptive death of petitioners spouse is for contracting subsequent marriage. There being a special provision in the Family Code for such kind of proceedings, then rules on special proceeding shall not apply. SHEKER V. SHEKER special provisions under Part II of the Rules of Court govern special proceedings, but in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in Part I of the Rules governing ordinary civil actions shall be applicable to special proceedings, as far as practicable.

Rule 73 Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons

A. Section 1 Venue: JAO V. CA the estate of an inhabitant of the Philippines shall be settled or letters or administration granted in the proper court located in the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death. Factors to consider in determining residence: 1. capacity to choose and freedom of choice 2. physical presence at the place chosen 3. intention to stay therein permanently Powers and Duties of Probate Court: 1. orders the probate of the will of the decedent 2. grants letters of administration of the party best entitled thereto or to any qualified applicant 3. supervises and controls all acts of administration 4. hears and approves claims against the estate of the deceased 5. orders payment of lawful debts 6. authorizes sale, mortgage or any encumbrance of real estate 7. directs delivery of the estate to those entitled thereto 8. acts as trustee VALERA v. INSERTO RTC, as acting probate court, exercises but limited jurisdiction, and thus has no power to take cognizance of and determine the issue of title to property claimed by a third person adversely to the decedent, UNLESS claimant and all other parties having legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly to the submission of the question to the probate court; or third persons are not thereby prejudiced.

M M B B E | Page 2 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

COCA v. BORROMEO Whether a particular matter should be resolved by the CFI/RTC in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited probate jurisdiction is in reality not a jurisdictional question. In essence, it is a procedural question involving a mode of practice, which may be waived.

Rule 74 - Summary Settlement of Estates

A. Section 1 Extrajudicial Settlement of Estates
1. 2. 3. decedent left no will, no debts, heirs are all of age or minors rep. by their judicial or legal rep. duly authorized for the purpose Extrajudicial Settlement (public instrument) If heirs disagree ordinary action for partition If only one heir affidavit of self-adjudication filed with the RD FILING OF BOND IS REQUIRED WITH THE R.D. IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY INVOLVED. PRESUMPTION OF NO DEBT 2YRS AFTER THE DEATH OF DECEDENT NO CREDITOR FILES A PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION EJS OR ADMINISTRATION SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION NO EJS SHALL BE BINDING UPON ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT PARTICIPATED THEREIN OR HAD NO NOTICE THEREOF.

SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT: RODRIGUEZ v. TAN(1952) Facts: judicial administration was granted to Abelardo, however the surviving wife opposed alleging that judicial administration is not necessary because her husband left no will, no debts, etc. as provided in Section 1 of Rule 74. Issue: WON judicial administration is necessary? Ruling: Nothing in Section 1, Rule 74 does prohibits the filing of judicial administration because of the entire provision used the word may which is not mandatory in character. The intention of the framers is to leave the matter to the discretion of the heirs. PEREIRA v. CA(1989) Facts: Rita, sister of decedent, filed a letter of administration. Victoria, wife of decedent, objected alleging that there was no estate to settle. Issue: WON judicial administration is necessary? Ruling: No. There must be compelling reason which will necessitate a judicial administration of the estate of deceased Andres Pereira.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT: HERNANDEZ v. ANDAL Oral partition is valid and binding. There is no requirement for the validity of a partition among the heirs to be in writing. The requirement that the partition should be reduced in a public document and registered has for its purpose the protection of creditors and at the same time the protection of the heirs themselves against tardy claims. B. Section 2 Summary Settlement of Estates of Small Value 1. Decedents gross value of estate does not exceed 10Kpesos 2. MTC has jurisdiction 100K (province) not exceeding 200K in Metro Manila M M B B E | Page 3 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

3. Hearing to be held not less than 1mo. Nor more than 3mos. From the date of last publication (once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province) C. Section 3 Bond to be filed by distributees 1. The court may require the distributees to file a bond in an amount to be fixed by the court, if property other than real is to be distributed D. Section 4 Liability of distributees and estate 1. Rule on Statutes of Limitations is not applicable to those who had no knowledge of settlement

Rule 75 Production of Will, Allowance of Will Necessary

A. Probate of Wills mandatory. Probate means DUE EXECUTION AND INTRINSIC VALIDITY: RODELAS v. ARANZA general rule the original of the holographic will must be presented in court because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in the said will. Exception: photographic or photostatic copy, even mimeographed or carbon copy or by other similar means, if any, whereby authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court. IN RE JOHNSON the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will of a citizen of one of the American States, proved under Section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is governed by the laws of the State of which he is a citizen. BALANAY v. MARTINEZ probate court may pass upon intrinsic validity of a will before passing upon its formal validity. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. When practical considerations demand to pass upon intrinsic validity, the court should meet the issue. MANINANG v. CA probate of a will is mandatory. The law enjoins the probate of the will and public policy requires it, because unless the Will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory. Probate of will does not look into its intrinsic validity. It only touches upon the capacity of the testator and the requisite solemnities of the will. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: FERNANDEZ v. DIMAGIBA a probate decree finally and definitely settles all questions concerning capacity of the testator and proper execution and witnessing of his last will and testament, irrespective of whether its provisions are valid and enforceable or otherwise. As such, the probate order is final and appealable under Rule 109 of the ROC. A. Responsible Persons M M B B E | Page 4 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

1. Who has custody of will 20 days after he knows of the death of the testator, he shall deliver the will to the court having jurisdiction, or to the executor named in the will. (Section 2) 2. Named executor 20 days after he knows of the death of the testator or 20 days after he knows that he is named executor if he obtained such knowledge after the death of the testator shall signify his acceptance or refusal in writing to the court. FAILURE TO DELIVER THE WILL TO THE COURT: 1. Custodian and executor fine not exceeding two thousand pesos. 2. Custodian (without reasonable cause) may be committed to prison and there kept until he delivers the will. C. Discovery of will during intestate proceedings

Rule 76 Allowance or Disallowance of Will

M M B B E | Page 5 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

REPUBLIC v. CA & MADRONA G.R. No. 163604 May 6, 2005 Facts: Apolinaria Malinao Jomoc filed a petition for the declaration of the presumptive death of her absentee spouse who left her nine years later. The petition was granted on the basis of the Commissioners Report and declared the absentee spouse dead. The Republic appealed but was dismissed due to the failure of the appellant to file such record on appeal. However the government filed a petition for certiorari contending that the declaration of presumptive death is not a special proceeding.

Issue: WON the petition for declaration of presumptive death is a special proceeding which requires record on appeal?

Ruling: No, it is a summary proceeding and do not require record on appeal. The purpose of the petition was to contract a subsequent marriage, therefore it is a summary proceeding under the Family Code and not special proceeding under the Rules of Court.

M M B B E | Page 6 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

PEREIRA v. CA G.R. No. 81147 June 20, 1989 Facts: Andres Pereira passed away and he was survived by his legitimate spouse and sister Rita. Rita filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor pertaining to the estate of Andres. It was alleged in the petition that she is the only surviving heir of Andres; that Andres left no will; that there are no creditors of the deceased and Andres left several properties, i.e. death benefits and real properties. Victoria opposed the same contending that there exists no estate of the deceased for purpose of administration, but the lower court appointed Rita as administratrix of the estate of Andres. Issue: WON the claims of the heirs of the deceased shall be made in a judicial administration? Ruling: No. Where the claims of the heirs of the deceased may be property ventilated in simple partition proceedings, judicial administration of estate is unnecessary. The reason why Rita seeks appointment as administratrix is for her to obtain possession of the alleged properties of the deceased for her own purposes, since these properties are presently in the hands of the petitioner who supposedly disposed of them fraudulently, is not a compelling reason which necessitates judicial administration.

M M B B E | Page 7 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

FERNANDEZ V. TANTOCO G.R. No. 25489 September 8, 1926 FACTS: It appears that on September 9, 1925, Basilia Tantoco, aged 62 years, executed an instrument purporting to be her will, she being at the time a patient in the San Juan de Dios Hospital in the City of Manila. Her death occurred a few days after the will was executed, and application for probate was made by father Vicente Fernandez, parish priest of Malolos. Opposition to probate was made by three brothers and a nephew of the deceased. At the time set for the submission of proof with respect to the execution of the will, the proponent introduced the three attesting witnesses to the instrument, namely, Vicente Platon, Fidel Macapugay, and Placido Suarez, as well as Aurea Gaspar, sister-in-law of the deceased who had been in attendance upon her at the hospital. The instrument shows every external requisite of proper execution, but the trial judge refused to allow it to be probated, for the reason that the three attesting witnesses are not in harmony upon the point whether all three of said witnesses were present together at the time and place when the testatrix and the witnesses affixed their signatures to the document. No testimony was submitted by the opposition, and the criticisms made by the trial judge with respect to the sufficiency of the proof of execution arise exclusively upon the testimony of the witnesses for the proponent. ISSUE: WON the last will and testament of deceased Basilia Tantoco may be probated? RULING: Yes. In case of opposition to the probate of the will the proponent is legally bound to introduce all of the subscribing witnesses, if available. They are therefore forced witnesses so far as the proponent is concerned, and he is not bound by their testimony to the same extent that a litigant is bound by the testimony of witnesses introduced in ordinary course. It follows that the proponent of a will may avail himself of other proof to establish the instrument, even contrary to the testimony of some of the subscribing witnesses, or all of them. The will in question a prima facie case for the establishment of the document was made out when it appeared that the instrument itself was properly drawn and attested and that all of the signatures thereto are authentic. These facts raise a presumption of regularity; and upon those facts alone the will should, be admitted to probate in the absence of proof showing that some fatal irregularity occurred. And such irregularity must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence before probate can be denied.

M M B B E | Page 8 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

GABRIEL, et. al. V. CA, et. al. G.R. No. 101512 August 7, 1992 FACTS: Roberto Dindo Gabriel was appointed as administrator of the estate of the late Domingo Gabriel. This was objected to by herein petitioners. On May 12, 1988, or nine (9) months after Domingo Gabriel died on August 6, 1987, RDG filed a petition for letters of administration alleging, among others, that he is the son of the decedent, a college graduate, engaged in business, and is fully capable of administering the estate of the late Domingo Gabriel. He mentioned eight (8) of herein petitioners as the other next of kin and heirs of the decedent. The required notice and publication were done. Despite thereof, no opposition was ever filed by any interested party. An ex-parte hearing was allowed. Then the court issued an order appointing RDG as administrator. Thereafter, notice to creditors for filing their claims was published and certain Aida Valencia appeared claiming her interest in the said estate. The inventory and appraisal of the properties were set for hearing, wherein petitioners, claiming to be legitimate children of the deceased, filed their opposition and moved to recall the letters of administration so issued to RDG. Petitioners contentions: 1) they were not duly informed by personal notice of the petition for administration; 2) petitioner Nilda Gabriel, as the legitimate daughter, should be preferred over private respondent; 3) private respondent has a conflicting and/or adverse interest against the estate because he might prefer the claims of his mother and 4) most of the properties of the decedent have already been relinquished by way of transfer of ownership to petitioners and should not be included in the value of the estate sought to be administered by private respondent. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT the order of preference to whom the letters of administration was issued in violation of the rules provided in Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court? RULING: No. The appointment of private respondent as administrator shall not be nullified. The determination of a person's suitability for the office of judicial administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment and said judgment is not to be interfered with on appeal unless the said court is clearly in error. Mere importunity by some of the heirs of the deceased, there being no factual and substantial bases therefore, is not adequate ratiocination for the removal of private respondent. Suffice it to state that the removal of an administrator does not lie on the whims, caprices and dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries of the estate. The court may also exercise its discretion in appointing an administrator where those who are entitled to letters fail to apply therefore within a given time. Section 6(a) of Rule 78 specifically states that letters of administration may be issued to both the surviving spouse and the next of kin. Section 2 of Rule 82 contemplates a contingency which may arise when there is only one administrator but which may easily be remediable where there is co-administration, to wit: "When an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed the remaining executor or administrator may administer the trust alone, . . . ." Also, co-administration herein will constitutes a recognition of both the extent of the interest of the widow in the estate and the creditable services rendered to and which may further be expected from private respondent for the same estate. M M B B E | Page 9 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

The SC held to appoint the wife as co-administrator.

M M B B E | Page 10 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

JOSE UY v. CA & TEODORO JARDELEZA November 29, 2000

FACTS: Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. suffered from stroke was comatose and bereft of any motor or mental faculties. Upon learning that one piece of real property of Ernesto was about to be sold, Teodoro filed a petition for guardianship of Ernesto. Teodoro alleged that Ernesto cannot competently administer his properties due to the present condition of Ernesto. However, the wife filed a petition seeking the declaration of incapacity of Ernesto Jardeleza, Jr., to assume sole powers in the administration of their conjugal properties and that she be authorized to sell them. After the Court found that it is necessary to defray the expenses of Ernestos hospitalization, the petition was granted pursuant to Article 124 of the Family Code and governed by the summary proceedings under Article 253 of the same Code. Teodoro contended that the prayers in the petition filed by his mother are that of guardianship also and as such it cannot be prosecuted under the Family Code, but by summary proceedings under the RRC which require procedural due process (NOTICE AND HEARING). On Appeal, the judgment of the lower court was reversed. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: WON the Family Code or the Revised Rules of Court shall govern this petition? RULING: In cases where the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give consent, the remedy is a judicial guardianship under the RRC. In this case, Ernesto was in comatose or semi-comatose condition, a victim of stroke, cerebrovascular accident, without motor and mental faculties, and with a diagnosis of brain stem infarct. Therefore, a spouse who wishes to sell the properties of the ward must observe the procedures required of judicial guardians under the RRC

M M B B E | Page 11 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

ALAMAYRI v. PABALE April 30, 2008

FACTS: Fernando v. Nave for Specific Performance and Damages
They executed a Kasunduan Sa Pagbibilihan, but when Fernando tendered his partial payment, Nave refused to accept the same and said that she did not want to sell the property anymore. NAVE contended that she refused the sale of her property because she was not informed of the contents of the papers she was asked to sign by FERNANDO and that she already sold the property to PABALEs. NAVEs husband Atty. Gesmundo was made as her co-defendant in this case. As additional defense is the fact of her incapacity to contract for being mentally deficient based on the psychological evaluation report as embodied in her second amended answer but admission of the same was denied. She likewise contended that in a criminal case she raised the defense of mental incapacity which determines her incapacity to enter into a contract.

Pending resolution of her M.R., a petition for guardianship was filed by Atty. Gesmundo over NAVE. It was granted and Atty. PANER was appointed as her guardian. NAVE died and her husband, as sole heir, adjudicated to himself the inherited properties. In view thereof, Atty. GESMUNDO moved for the dismissal of the F v. N case and for the issuance of execution of the judgment in the guardianship proceedings. PABALE objected on ground that they were not notified of the said proceedings. RTC declared the handwritten contract to sell executed by NAVE in favor of FERNANDO null and void as well the Deed of Sale in favor of Pabale siblings and ecognizes ALAMAYRI as now the owner of the property having sold by Atty. GESMUNDO to her. PABALE appealed to the CA which judgment was reversed and held the sale between NAVE and PABALE siblings as VALID. ALAMAYRI sought reconsideration invoking the Decision in the guardianship proceedings which found NAVE as incompetent since 1980 and the same became final and executory. ISSUE: WON the guardianship proceedings is binding to PABALE siblings? RULING: No, although their alleged father, Jose Pabale was present during one of the hearing in the said petition, there was no proof that indeed Jose is the father of the Pabale siblings. Even proof was sufficient establishing the filiations of Jose to Pabale siblings, still no proof of authority was established that Pabale siblings authorized Jose to appear for and on their behalf in the proceedings. Therefore, the outcome of the proceedings does not bind the Pabale siblings.

M M B B E | Page 12 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

Neither was there identity of issues in the special proceedings and the specific performance case although both proceedings challenged the competency of NAVE. In the civil case, competency of NAVE was raised to determine her capacity to enter contract while in the special proceedings, she was declared incompetent at the time of the filing of the petition which was in 1986. However, it does not retroact effectivity in 1984 when she executed a deed of sale in favor of the Pabale siblings. Therefore, the findings of the CA were correct when it upheld the validity of the said deed of sale.

M M B B E | Page 13 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----

HERNANDEZ v. SAN JUAN-SANTOS August 7, 2009

FACTS: Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez (LULU) was the daughter of FELIX and MARIA. The latter died, barely four years FELIX got married to NATIVIDAD and had 3 children (herein petitioners). As the only heir of MARIA and the sole testate heir of SOTERO (maternal uncle who took care of her until she was 10), she inherited valuable properties roughly 50million pesos. She had violent personality, so she stopped schooling when she reached Grade 5. Upon reaching the age of majority, LULU was given full control of her estate. However, due to lack of education, FELIX exercises the actual administration of LULUs properties. Her estate was disposed of by her father and half-siblings. She sought assistance from JOVITA SAN JUAN-SANTOS (JOVITA), her maternal first cousin. Upon learning her condition, JOVITA filed a petition for guardianship on grounds that LULU was incapable of taking care of herself and manage her estate because she was of weak mind and suffering from diseases, i.e. tuberculosis, rheumatism and diabetes with several complications. The guardianship proceedings was granted to JOVITA and LULU was in her care until after was abducted by herein respondents. Petition for habeas corpus filed by JOVITA against respondents and the CA held JOVITA as the legal guardian and entitled to her custody. ISSUE: WON LULU is an incompetent who requires the appointment of a judicial guardian over her person and property? RULING: Yes. Under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court, persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar causes are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid, are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship. The RTC and the CA both found that Lulu was incapable of taking care of herself and her properties without outside aid due to her ailments and weak mind. Thus, since determining whether or not Lulu is in fact an incompetent would require a reexamination of the evidence presented in the courts a quo, it undoubtedly involves questions of fact. Hernandezs are required to render an accounting of all the properties and funds they unlawfully appropriated for themselves.

M M B B E | Page 14 ----- Batangas State University College of Law Notes: Special Proceedings (Remedial Law) -----