Special Proceedings Outline Rule 72 Action v Special Proceeding Pacific Banking v CA 242 § 493 Rule 73, Roberto v Leonidas 129 $ 33 Testate v Intestate Cuenco v CA 53 $ 360 Rodriguez v Borja 17S 418 Where estate settled if resident v non-resident -meaning of residence (intent to return or intent to remain) residence pertains to venue only, not jurisdiction, hence waivable Cayetano v Leonides 129 S 522 Garcia Fule v CA 74 $ 189 Jurisdiction limited to adjudication and settlement of properties of deceased Uy v Dizon-Capulong 221 S 87 Jimenez v CA 184 367 Pia Barreto v CA 131 S606 Ramos v CA 180 $ 635 Pastor v CA 122 $ 885 Exception: ‘Trinidad v CA 202 S 106 Valera v Inserto 149 $ 533 Death (fact or presumed) is jurisdictional Rule 74 General rule is judicial administration, except ~where no will and no debis a) extrajudicial among heirs or adjudication of sole heir b) partition, ifheirs cannot agree -where there are debts but estate small, summary settlement of estateResort to judicial administration even if estate has no debt only for good reason Liability of distributes How enforced? ‘Yap v CA 274 § 676 Rule 75 Probate needed Authority of probate court Pastor v Ca, supra 2 stages of probate probate proper- deals with extrinsic validity of the will i) 2 phase- intrinsic validity and distribution Substantial compliance with formal requirements, Alvarado v Gaviola 226 $ 347 Rule is that probate court will look only into extrinsie validity of will When intrinsic validity may be passed upon, even before probate Nepomuceno v CA 139 $ 206 Ajero v Ca, 236 $ 988 Rule 76 Who may ask for probate Interest in estate (heir, creditor) Who may oppose Acain v lac 155 S$ 100 mn when acquired upon petition -upon delivery jurisdictional facts De Guzman v Angeles 162 S 347Notice by publication (in rem) v personal notice Probate of holographic will Proof of notarial will v holographic will Proof of lost/destroyed notarial will v holographic will ‘When terminated a) approval by probate court of partition )_ granting of petition to close the proceedings ©) consequent issuance of order of partition Rule 77 Requisites for reprobate Perez v Tolete 232 S 722 Need for ancillary administrator Foreign-appointed administrator v ancillary administrator Rule 78 What are letters testamentary and of administration When and to whom issued - executor v administrator Order of preference (reason behind preference?) ‘Ventura vy Ventura 160 S 810 Criterion in selection of administrator extent of interest in estate (why?) Role of administrator is to represent everyone concerned with the estate of deceased Rule 79 Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary Who can petition for administration (any interested person)Notice required De Guzman v Angeles, supra Opposition to petition for administration Letters of administrati to go to any competent applicant Rule 80 Special administrator; why and when needed De Guzman v Guadiz. 96 $ 938 De Guzman v Angeles, supra Role and function of special administrator Corona v CA 116 § 316 Regular v special administrator Liwanag v Reyes 12 $ 43 No order of preference in special administrator Rule 82 ‘When administration revoked Effect of revocation Removal of administrator/executor Mendiola v CA 190 $ 421 Gabriel v Ca 212 $ 413 Validity of prior acts Vda de Bacaling v Laguda 54 $ 243 Rule 83 Question of ownership, how treated Munsayac-de Villa v CA 414 S 436 Heirs of Miguel Franco v CA 418 S 60De leon v CA 386 $216 Provisional support Santero v CFI 153 $ 728 Ruiz v CA 252 § 541 Rule 84 ‘What constitutes administration Caro v CA 113$ 10 Mananquil v Villegas 189 $ 335 Estate of Olave v Reyes 123 $ 767 Administration v Dominion Rule 85 Accountability of executor/administrator Liebility of admfexec v liability of estate Necessary expenses Compensation Attomeys fees, when chargeable to estate, exec/adm Pascual v CA 300 § 214 Accounting by exec/adm (notice to interested parties) Rule 86 Estate liable to all creditors Court to issue notice Periods to file claim How claims presented/prosecuted Ignacio v Pampanga Bus 20 $ 126 Sec 5Claims allowed Money claims Expenses Judgment debts P v Bayotas 236 S 239 (optional reading only) Procedure on claims Rule 87 Actions that survive Melgar v Buenviaje 179 S 196 Right of heir inchoate Right to compel 3" persons to examination and right to recover property ‘Chua v Absolute Management Corporation 413 $ 547 Right of creditor to file if exec/adm refuses Rule 88 Sale or mortgage (like in execution sale) Contingent liability Prescriptive periods on right to reach distributes De Bautista v de Guzman 125 S 676 Liability of heits/distributes Pastor v CA, supra Preference in credit applied Local v foreign creditors Rule 89 Sale must be with court approval and notice Probate court to approve sale, also to nullify unauthorized saleAcebedo v Abesamis 217 $ 186 Right of heirs to dispose of right in estate Heirs of Pedro Escanlar v CA 281 $ 176 Rule 90 When proceedings closed ‘When probate court loses jurisdiction Motion for execution to deliver distributee’s share v separate action Heirs of the late Fran v Salas 210 $ 303, When distribution proper fier payment of obligation (liquidation) Declaration of heirs (before or after liquidation) Kilayko v Tengco 207 $ 600 Partition Solivio v CA 182 $119 Final decree of partition ESCHEAT Rule 91 Cases: 1 Municipal Council of San Pedro v. Castillo, 65 Phil 819 (1937) 2. Imre Estate of Lao Sayco, 21 Phil 445 (1912) GUARDIANSHIP Rule 92 - Venue Cases: 1, Parco v. CA, 111 SCRA 262 (1982) 2. Paciente v. Dacuycuy et al, 114 SCRA 924 (1982) 3. Garcia Vda De Chua v. CA, 287 SCRA 33 (1998) Rule 93 — Appointment of Guardians — see also FC Art. 222-227 Cases: 1, Yangeo v. CFI, 29 Phil 183 (1915) 2, Guerrero v. Teran, 13 Phil 212 (1909)3. Nery et al v. Lorenzo et al, 44 SCRA 431 (1972) 4, Zafia-Sarte v. CA, 32 SCRA 175 (1970) Rule 94 — Bond of Guardians Rule 95 ~ Selling and Encumbering Property of Ward 1. Pardo de Tavera v. El Hogar Filipino et al, 98 Phil 481 (1956) Rule 96 ~ General Powers and Duties of Guardians ~ see also CC Art 736 Rule 97 ~ Termination of Guardian: Cases: ip; see also FC Arts, 134-236, R.A. 6809 1, Crisostomo v. Endencia, 66 Phil 1 (1938) 2. Vda de Bengson v. PNB, 3 SCRA 751 (1961) 3. In re Guardianship of Inchausti, 40 Phil 682 (1920) *Guardianship of Minors, A.M. No. 03-02-05 SC ‘TRUSTEESHIP ~ Rule 98; see also CC Arts. 1443-1446 Cases: 1, De Leon v. Molo-Peckson, 6 SCRA 978 (1962) 2. Heirs of Lorenzo Yap v. CA, 312 SCRA 603 (1999) ADOPTION AND CUSTODY OF MINORS A. Adoption 1, Rule on Adoption — A.M. No. 02-6-02, August 22, 2002 2. RA. 8552 3. R.A. 8043 B. Custody 1. A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC_ Cases Moncupa v. Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986) Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778 (1919) In re Ashraf Kunting, 487 SCRA 602 (2006) Burgos v. Macapagal-Arroyo et al, 621 SCRA 481 (2010) aeNECHANGE OF NAME (Rule 103) and CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY (Rule 108) Laws: 1. CC Art. 376 2. RA. 9048 3. IRR of R.A. 9048 (Admin, Order 1, Series of 2001) Cases: Haw Liong v. Rep., 16 SCRA 677 (1966) Llaneta v. AGrava, 57 SCRA 29 (1994) Secan Kok v. Republic, 52 CRA 322 (1973) Villegas et al v. Fernando et al, 27 SCRA 119 (1969) . Rep. v. Cagandahan, 565 SCRA 72 (2008) 5. Braza et al v. Civil Register et al, 607 SCRA 638 (2009) !. Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas et al, 628 SCRA 266 (2010) NAAR E VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATIONS Laws: 1, Corporation Code, Secs. 117-122 2. FRIA. R.A. 10142 3, AM, No, 00-8-10-SC, Dec. 2, 2008 4. A.M. No. 04-07-SC, Sep 14, 2004 RECOGNITION OF MINOR NATURAL CHILDREN ~ FC Arts, 163-182 © RA. 9255 * IRR of R.A. 9255 (Admin. Order Series of 2004) Cases: 1. Taneo et al v. CA, 304 SCRA 308 (199) 2. Uyguanco et al v. CA, 178 SCRA 684 (1989) CONSTITUTION OF FAMILY HOME - FC ART 513, CC Arts. 152-162 ABSENTEES — Rule 107; see also SS Arts. 381-386; FC Arts. 41-43 Cases: 1, Jones v, Hortiguela, 64 Phil 179 (1937) 2. Tol-Noquera v. Villamor et al, 211 SCRA 616 (1992) OTHER WRITS A. Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SCTapuz v. Del Rosario, 554 SCRA 768 (2008) Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 630 SCRA 210 (2010) Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 613 SCRA 233 (2010) Salcedo v. Bollozos, 623 SCRA 27 (2010) Razon et al. v. Tagitis, 606 SCRA 598 (2009) Yano et al v. Sanchez et al, 612 SCRA 347 (2010) AWawLE B. Writ of Habeas Data, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC 1. Castillo v. Cruz, 605 SCRA 628 (2009) 2. Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra 3. Meralco v. Lim, 632 SCRA 195 (2010) C. Writ of Kalikasan, Rule of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8- sc 1, Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (1993) 2. Hemandez v. Placer Dome Ine., G.R. No. 195482, June 21, 2011 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION *A.M, No. 07-11-08-SC, Sep. 1, 2009 APPEALS — Rule 109 Cases: Dais v. Gardufio, 49 Phil 165 (1926) Testate Estate of Vda. De Biascan, 347 SCRA 621 (2000) Miranda v. CA, 71 SCRA 295 (1976) Dael et al v. IAC, 171 SCRA 524 (1989) Rep v. Nishina, 634 SCRA 716 (2010) Rep v. Marcos, supra ave eye