SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS SYLLABUS – JUDGE BATHAN

Rule 72 – Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules

 Difference between an action and a special proceeding

Cases:

1. Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization vs. CA, GR No. 109373 (1995)

2. Natcher vs. Court of Appeals, 366 SCRA 386 (2001

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Rule 73 – Venue and Process

 Where estate of the deceased person is settled

 When does the court acquire jurisdiction

 Settlement of estate upon dissolution of marriage

 Presumption of Death – Article 390-392 of the Civil Code

Cases:

1. Cuenco vs. Court of Appeals, 53 SCRA 360 (1973)

2. Lim vs. CA, GR No. 124715 (2000)

1
3. Uriarte vs. CFI of Negro Occidental, 33 SCRA 252 (1970)

4. Eusebio vs. Eusebio, 100 Phil 593 (1956)

5. Garcie Fule vs. Court of Appeals, 74 SCRA 189 (1976)

6. Intestate Estate of the Late Vito Borromeo vs Borromeo, GR No. L-41171 (1987)

7. Musa vs. Moson, GR No. 95574 (1991)

8. Vda de Reyes vs. CA, GR No. 92436 (1991)

9. Heirs of Ypon vs. Ricaforte, GR No. 198680 (2013)

10. Puno vs. Puno Enterprises, GR No. 177066 (2009)

11. San Luis vs. San Luis, GR No. 133743 (2007)

12. Republic vs. CA, GR No. 127969 (1999)

2
 13. Quiazon vs. Belen, GR No. 189121 (2013)

14. Jao vs. CA, GR No. 128314 (2002)

15. Union Bank vs. Santibanez, GR No. 149926 (2005)

SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE

3 Kinds of Settlement

 Extrajudicial Settlement (Rule 74.1)

 Summary Settlement of Estates of Small Value (Rule 74.2)
 Judicial Settlement (Rule 75-89)

A. EXTRAJUDICIAL & SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES

Rule 74 – Summary Settlement of Estates

 Requisites of a valid Extrajudicial Settlement

 Nature of Summary Settlement

 Requisites for a valid summary settlement of an estate of small value

 Extrajudicial Settlement vs. Summary Settlement

Cases:

1. Utulo vs. Vda. De Garcia, 66 Phil 302 (1938)

3
 2. Fule vs. Fule, GR No. 21859 (1924)

3. Pereira vs. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 154 (1939)

4. Pizarro vs. CA, GR No. L-31979 (1980)

5. Benatiro vs. Cuyos, GR No. 161220 (2008)

6. Tayco vs. Heirs of Tayco, GR No. 168692 (2010)

7. Brito vs. Dianala, GR No. 171717 (2010)

8. Hernandez vs. Andal, 78 Phil 196 (1947)

B. JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES

Rule 75 – Production of Will, Allowance of Will Necessary

 Probate of Will is Mandatory; EXCEPTIONS

 Probate Court’s authority is limited to determination of extrinsic validity; EXCEPTIONS

4
  Substantial Compliance is Sufficient

 Decree of Probate is conclusive as to its due execution

Cases:

1. Roberts vs. Leonidas, GR No. L-55509 (1984)

2. Uriarte vs. CFI of Negros Occidental, 33 SCRA 252 (1970)

3. Baluyut vs. Pano, GR No. L-42088 (1976)

4. Maninang vs. CA, GR No. L-57848 (1982)

5. Vda De Kilayko vs. Tengco, GR No. 45425 (1992)

6. Icasiano vs. Icasiano, GR No. L-18979 (1964)

7. Nuguid vs. Nuguid, GR No. L-23445 (1966)

8. Aranas vs. Mercado, GR No. 156407 (2014)

5
9. Nittscher vs. Nittscher, GR No. 160530 (2007)

10. Ralla vs. Untalan, GR No. L-63253-54 (1989)

11. Aluad vs. Aluad, GR No. 176943 (2003)

12. Uy Kiao Eng vs. Lee, GR No. 176831 (2010)

13. Seangio vs. Reyes, GR No. 140371-72 (2006)

14. Gerona vs. De Guzman, GR No. L-19060 (1964)

15. Balbin vs. Medalla, GR No. L46410 (1981)

16. Perez vs. Chua, GR No. L-36850 (1982)

17. Pastor, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-56340 (1983)

18. Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr., GR No. 74695 (1993)

6
Rule 76 – Allowance or Disallowance of Wills

 Nature of Probate of a Will

 Effect of allowance or disallowance of a will

 Jurisdictional Requirements for probate of a will

 Scope of Inquiry on proceedings to probate will

 Proof required on probate hearing

 Binding force of trial court order allowing or disallowing a will

 Jurisdiction

Cases:

1. Sumilang vs. Ramagosa, 21 SCRA 1369 (1967)

2. ACAIN vs. IAC, GR No. 72706 (1987)

3. Heirs of Fran vs. Salas, GR No. L-53546 (1992)

4. Guzman vs. Angeles, GR No. 78590 (1988)

5. Sajo vs. Maravilla, GR No. L23225 (1971)

7
 6. Leviste vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-29184 (1989)

7. Labrador vs. CA, GR No. 83843-44 (1990)

8. De Jesus vs. De Jesus Jr., GR No. L-38338 (1985)

9. Kalaw vs. Relova, GR No. L-40207 (1984)

10. Rivera vs. IAC, GR No. 75005-06 (1990)

11. Codoy vs Calugay, GR No. 123486 (1999)

12. Ajero vs. CA, GR No. 106720 (1994)

13. Palaganas vs. Palaganas, GR No. 169144 (2011)

Rule 77 – Allowance of Will proved outside of the Philippines

 Article 815 to 817 of the Civil Code

 Requisites of Probate of a Will allowed in a foreign state

8
Cases:

1. Vda De Perez vs. Tolete, GR No. 76714 (1994)

2. Johannes vs D’Almeida, GR No. L-19759 (1922)

3. Cayetano vs. Leonidas, GR No. L-54919 (1984)

4. Suntay vs. Suntay, 95 Phil 500 (1954)

5. Leon & Ghezzi vs. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., 90 Phil 459 (1951)

Rule 78 – Letters Testamentary and of Administration

 Who may server as executors and administrators

 Executor vs. Administrator

 When letters testamentary and letters of administration granted

Cases:

1. San juan, Jr. vs. Cruz, GR No. 167321 (2006)

2. Suntay vs. Suntay, GR No. 183053 (2012)

9
 3. Hilado vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 164108 (2009)

4. Tan vs. Gedorio, Jr. GR No. 166520 (2008)

5. Gabriel vs. CA, GR No. 101512 (2012)

Rule 79 – Opposing Issuance of Letters Testamentary, Petition & Contest of Letters of Administration

Cases:

1. Saguinsin vs. Lindayag, GR No. L-17759 (1962)

2. Shell vs. Dumlao, GR No. L-44888 (1992)

3. Villegas vs. Villegas, GR No. L-11848 (1962)

Rule 80 – Special Administrator

 When a special administrator may be appointed

 Powers and duties

Cases:

1. Guzman vs. Guadiz, GR No. L-48585 (1980)

10
 2. Liwanag vs. CA, GR No. L-20735 (1965)

3. Andersons vs. Perkins, GR No. L-15388 (1961)

Rule 81 – Bond of Executors and Administrators

 Conditions required from executors/administrators upon payment of bond

Cases:

1. Luzon Surety vs. Quebrar, GR No. L-40517 (1984)

2. Valera vs. Sancho, GR No. L-56504 (1987)

Rule 82 – Revocation of Administration, Death, Resignation, and Removal of Executors or

Administrators

 Grounds for Revocation

 Grounds for Removal

 Resignation

 Powers of New Administrators/Executors

11
Cases:

1. De Parreno vs. Aranzanso, GR No. L-27657 (1992)

2. Kalaw vs. IAC, GR No. 74618 (1992)

3. Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo, GR No. 74769 (1990)

Rule 83 – Inventory and Appraisal

 When to return inventory and appraisal

 What need not be inventoried

 Allowance of Widow and Family

Cases:

1. Sebial vs. Sebial, GR No. L-23419 (1975)

2. Santero vs. CFI of Cavite, GR No. L-61700 (1987)

3. Reyes vs. Mosqueda, GR No. L-45262 (1990)

12
Rule 84 – General Powers and Duties of Executors and Administrators

Cases:

1. Manaquil vs. Villegas, AM No. 2430 (1990)

2. Lindain vs CA, GR No. 95305 (1992)

Rule 85 – Account Liability and Compensation of Executors and Administrators

Cases:

1. De Guzman vs. Carillo, GR No. L-29276 (1978)

2. Velasco vs. Reyes, GR No. 86250 (1990)

C. SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE

Rule 86 – Claims against the Estate

 Notice to creditors issued by the Court

 When claim should be filed

 Belated Claims

13
  Publication & Notice to Creditors

 Types of Claims required to be filed

 Solidary Obligation of the decedent

 Remedies of mortgagee against deceased mortgagor

 Claim of executor/administrator against the estate

 How to file a claim

Case:

1. Gabriel vs. Bilon, GR No. 146989 (2007)

Rule 87- Actions By and Against Executors and Administrators

 Actions that survive the death of decedent

 Heirs may NOT sue until there is an order by the court assigning their respective shares

 Foreclosure of Mortgage belonging to decedent

14
  When property is concealed, embezzled, or fraudulently conveyed

 Requisites before action may be filed by creditor

Rule 88 – Payment of the Debts of the Estate

 Order of Payment

 When contingent claims become absolute

 Estate is insolvent

Cases:

1. Vda De Valera vs. Ofilada, GR No. L-27526 (1974)

2. Arkoncel vs. Lagamon, GR No. L-50526 (1991)

15
Rule 89 – Sales, Mortgages and other encumbrances of property of Decedent

 Order of Sale of Personality

 When court may authorize sale, mortgage or other encumbrance of realty
 Who may prevent such sale, etc.
 When court may authorize sale of estate as beneficial to interested persons
 When court may authorize sale, mortgage or other encumbrance of estate to pay debts in
foreign countries
 When court may authorize sale, mortgage or other encumbrance of realty acquired on
execution
 Regulations for granting authority to sell/mortgage/encumber estate
 Motion for Execution of Deed of Conveyance

III. DISTRIBUTION AND PARTITION OF THE ESTATE

Rule 90 – Distribution and Partition of the Estate

 Distribution of Residue
 Questions as to advancements
 Payment of expenses of partition

Cases:

1. Heirs of Marcelino vs. Heirs of Fortunato, GR No. 169454 (2007)

2. Silverio, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals , GR No. 178933 (2009)
3. Nunal vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 94005 (1993)

Rule 91 – Escheat

Case:

1. Heirs of Avila vs. CA, GR No. L-45255 (1986)

Rule 92-97 – Guardianship

 Venue
 Articles 222-227 of the Family Code
 Contents of the Petition, jurisdictional facts, jurisdictional requirement
 Opposition; who may file; grounds
 Considerations in the appointment of a guardian
 Bonds of guardians, purpose and conditions
 Powers and duties of guardians
 Termination of Guardianship

Cases:

16
 1. Yangco vs. CFI of Manila, 21 Phil 184 (1915)
2. Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 371 (1984)
3. Almayri vs. Pabale , GR No. 151243 (2008)

Rule 98 – Trustees

 Who appoints the trustee

 Who may file a petition for appointment of a trustee
 Powers of Trustee
 Bonds; Conditions
 Differences between a Trustee and Executor/Administrator
 Removal/resignation of trustee

Rule 99-100 – Adoption

 RA 8552 – Domestic Adoption

 RA 8043 – Intercountry Adoption
 AM No. 03-04-04-SC – Rule of Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to
Custody of Minors
 Rescission and Revocation of Adoption

Case:

1. In the matter of adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, GR No. 148311 (2005
2. Landingin vs. Republic, GR No. 164948 (2006)
3. Santos vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 113054 (1995)

Rule 102 – Habeas Corpus

 Compared to Habeas Data

 Compared to Writ of Ampora

Cases:

1. In the matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Capt. Gary Alejano, GR No. 160792 (2005)
2. Madrinan vs. Madrianan, GR No. 159374 (2007)
3. Thornton vs Thornton, GR No. 154598 (2004)
4. In the matter of the Petition of Habeas Corpus of Eufemia E. Rodriguez, GR No. 169482 (2008)
5. Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo, GR No. 180906 (2008)
6. Spouses Pador vs. Arcayan, GR No. 18346 (2013)
7. In the matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data in favor of Noriel
Rodriguez, GR No. 191805 (2011

17
Rule 103 – Change of Name

 In conjunction with RA 9048, as amended by RA 10172

Cases:

1. Republic vs. CA, GR No. 88202 (1998)

2. In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction/Cancellation of Entry in the Civil Registry
of Julian Lin Carusalan Wang, GR No. 159966 (2005)

3. Republic vs. Hernandez, GR No. 117209 (1996)

Rule 107 – Absentees

 Art. 381. When a person disappears from his domicile, his whereabouts being unknown,
and without leaving an agent to administer his property, the judge, at the instance of an
interested party, a relative, or a friend, may appoint a person to represent him in all that
may be necessary.
 This same rule shall be observed when under similar circumstances the power conferred
by the absentee has expired.
 Art. 382. The appointment referred to in the preceding article having been made, the
judge shall take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights and interests of the
absentee and shall specify the powers, obligations and remuneration of his representative,
regulating them, according to the circumstances, by the rules concerning guardians.
 Art. 383. In the appointment of a representative, the spouse present shall be preferred
when there is no legal separation.
 If the absentee left no spouse, or if the spouse present is a minor, any competent person
may be appointed by the court.
 Art. 384. Two years having elapsed without any news about the absentee or since the
receipt of the last news, and five years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of
the administration of his property, his absence may be declared. (184)
 Art. 385. The following may ask for the declaration of absence:
o (1) The spouse present;

18
 o (2) The heirs instituted in a will, who may present an authentic copy of the same;
o (3) The relatives who may succeed by the law of intestacy;
o (4) Those who may have over the property of the absentee some right
subordinated to the condition of his death. (185)
 Art. 386. The judicial declaration of absence shall not take effect until six months after its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation. (186a)
 Art. 388. The wife who is appointed as an administratrix of the husband's property cannot
alienate or encumber the husband's property, or that of the conjugal partnership, without
judicial authority. (188a)
 Art. 389. The administration shall cease in any of the following cases:
o (1) When the absentee appears personally or by means of an agent;
o (2) When the death of the absentee is proved and his testate or intestate heirs
appear;
o (3) When a third person appears, showing by a proper document that he has
acquired the absentee's property by purchase or other title.
 In these cases the administrator shall cease in the performance of his office, and the
property shall be at the disposal of those who may have a right thereto.

Case:

1. Reyes vs. Alejandro, GR No. L-32026 (1986)

Rule 108 – Cancellation of Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry

Cases:

1. Silverio vs. Republic, GR No. 174689 (2007)

2. Republic vs. Cagandahan, GR No. 166676 (2008)

3. Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo, GR No. 189476 (2011)

19
 4. Republic vs. Kho, GR No. 170340 (2007)

5. Braza vs. City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, GR No. 181174 (2009)

6. Republic vs. Olaybar, GR No. 189538 (2014)

7. Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas, GR No. 186571 (2010)

Rule 108 – Appeals in Special Proceedings

 Mode of Appeal

 Cases Appealable

 Cases NOT Appealable

20