Spec Pro Quiz Weeks 1 & 2

Instruction: Write your answers/comments on the following problems and submit your
yellow papers on the next meeting. Prepare for recitation.

1 On September 12,1962, the City of Davao filed a petition in the Court of First
Instance of Davao, Branch I (Special Civil Case No. 1220) to declare Dominga Garcia's land
escheated in its favor. It alleged that Dominga Garcia and her children are presumed to be
dead and since Dominga Garcia left no heir or any person by law entitled to inherit her
estate, the same should be escheated pursuant to Rule 92 of the Rules of Court (pp. 1-5,
Record on Appeal). Will the petition prosper?

2 In this appeal, Mrs. Baluyut contends that she was denied due process of law when
the guardianship court summarily announced its verdict on her incompetency
notwithstanding that her lawyer had not cross-examined the psychiatrist.

3 Defendant Insurance Company xx set up the affirmative defense that inasmuch as

the policy loan application and the surrender of the policy involved acts of disposition and
alienation of the property rights of the minor, said acts are not within the powers of the legal
administrator, under article 320 in relation to article 326 of the Civil Code. 4

4 xx judicial guardian-appellant Mrs. de Pua argues xx that the transfer of rights is

void ab initio and cannot be approved nor confirmed, because under Rule 95, Sec. 1 of the
Rules of Court, property under guardianship can be sold only by prior authority granted by
the guardianship court.

5 The issue presented in this case is the validity of a sale of a parcel of land by the
administrator of an intestate estate made pursuant to a petition for authority to sell and an
order granting it which were filed and entered, respectively, without notice to the heirs of the
decedents.

6 Whether or not Branch IV exercising limited and special, jurisdiction as a

guardianship court under Section 6 Rule 96 of the Rules of Court has jurisdiction to order
the delivery or reconveyance of the three parcels of land in question to the ward,
represented herein by private respondent.

7 xx the Court of Appeals xx held that the sale by Saturnina of petitioner Rito’s
undivided share to the property was unenforceable for lack of authority or legal
representation but that the contract was effectively ratified by petitioner Rito’s receipt of the
proceeds on July 24, 1986.

8 whether petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza as the wife of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. who
suffered a stroke, a cerebrovascular accident, rendering him comatose, without motor and
mental faculties, and could not manage their conjugal partnership property may assume
sole powers of administration of the conjugal property under Article 124 of the Family Code
and dispose of a parcel of land with its improvements, worth more than twelve million
pesos, with the approval of the court in a summary proceedings, to her co-petitioners, her
own daughter and son-in-law, for the amount of eight million pesos.

Page 1 of 1