2019 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 11
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
PROBATE PROCEEDINGS
If a will is subsequently discovered, the intestate proceeding that was commenced must be
suspended subject to the determination of the validity of the will.
Whether the intestate proceeding already commenced should be discontinued and a new
proceeding under a separate number and title should be constituted is entirely a matter of form
and lies within the sound discretion of the court. In no manner does it prejudice the substantial
rights of any heirs or creditors.
However, the discovery of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of a deceased,
after the appointment of an administrator of the estate of the latter, upon the assumption that
he or she had died intestate, does not ipso facto nullify the letters of administration already
issued or even authorize the revocation thereof, until the alleged will has been proved and
allowed by the court. Advincula vs. Teodoro, G.R. No. L-9282, May 31, 1956
While it is a rule that the issues of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the proper probate
court in a special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such rights and
not in an ordinary civil action, such institution of a special proceeding may be dispensed with if
the case involves the only property of the intestate estate subject of the proceeding. Here,
institution of a special proceeding is impractical.
It appearing, however, that in the present case the only property of the intestate estate of
Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it, under the circumstances of the case, to
a special proceeding which could be long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status of
petitioners as heirs is not only impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and
expenses of an administration proceeding. And it is superfluous in light of the fact that the parties
to the civil case – subject of the present case, could and had already in fact presented evidence
before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case upon the issues it defined during
pre-trial.
In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compelling reason to still
subject Portugal’s estate to administration proceedings since a determination of petitioners’
status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners (Vide Pereira v. Court of
Appeals, 174 SCRA 154 [1989]; Intestate Estate of Mercado v. Magtibay, 96 Phil. 383 [1955]), the
trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the trial and
render a decision thereon upon the issues it defined during pre-trial, x x x (emphasis supplied).
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 6
2019 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 11
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Similarly, in the present case, there appears to be only one parcel of land being claimed by the
contending parties as their inheritance from Juan Gabatan. It would be more practical to dispense
with a separate special proceeding for the determination of the status of respondent as the sole
heir of Juan Gabatan, especially in light of the fact that the parties to Civil Case No. 89-092, had
voluntarily submitted the issue to the RTC and already presented their evidence regarding the
issue of heirship in these proceeding. Also, the RTC assumed jurisdiction over the same and
consequently rendered judgment thereon. Heirs of Gabatan vs. CA, G.R. No. 150206, March 13,
2009
Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must
be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of
ownership and possession of property. This must take precedence over the action for recovery
of possession and ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make
a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be
made in a special proceeding.
Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by
which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can
be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the
establishment of a status or right.
In the early case of Litam, et al. v. Rivera, this Court ruled that the declaration of heirship must
be made in a special proceeding, and not in an independent civil action. This doctrine was
reiterated in Solivio v. Court of Appeals x x x:
In the more recent case of Milagros Joaquino v. Lourdes Reyes, the Court reiterated its ruling that
matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the proper probate
court in a special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such rights.
Citing the case of Agapay v. Palang, this Court held that the status of an illegitimate child who
claimed to be an heir to a decedent's estate could not be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action
which, as in this case, was for the recovery of property. Heirs of Ypon vs. Ricaforte, G.R. No.
198680, July 8, 2013, J. Perlas-Bernabe
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 6
2019 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 11
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
A Habeas Data Petition is dismissible if it fails to adequately show that there exists a nexus
between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty, or security on the
other. Moreover, it is equally dismissible if it is not supported by substantial evidence showing
an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty, or security of the victim.
In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy
in life, liberty or security was or would be violated through the supposed reproduction and
threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the
suppression of this video – which he fears would somehow find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded
in the internet for public consumption – he failed to explain the connection between such
interest and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security. Indeed, courts cannot speculate
or contrive versions of possible transgressions. As the rules and existing jurisprudence on the
matter evoke, alleging and eventually proving the nexus between one’s privacy right to the
cogent rights to life, liberty or security are crucial in habeas data cases, so much so that a failure
on either account certainly renders a habeas data petition dismissible, as in this case.
In fact, even discounting the insufficiency of the allegations, the petition would equally be
dismissible due to the inadequacy of the evidence presented. As the records show, all that Ilagan
submitted in support of his petition was his self-serving testimony which hardly meets the
substantial evidence requirement as prescribed by the Habeas Data Rule. There is nothing which
would indicate that Lee actually proceeded to commit any overt act towards the end of violating
Ilagan’s right to privacy in life, liberty or security. Nor would anything on record even lead a
reasonable mind to conclude that Lee was going to use the subject video in order to achieve
unlawful ends – say for instance, to spread it to the public so as to ruin Ilagan’s reputation.
Contrastingly, Lee even made it clear in her testimony that the only reason why she reproduced
the subject video was to legitimately utilize the same as evidence in the criminal and
administrative cases that she filed against Ilagan. Lee vs. Ilagan, G.R. No. 203254, October 8,
2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
The writ of habeas data can be availed of as an independent remedy to enforce one’s right to
privacy, more specifically the right to informational privacy.
The court still found that the remedy is wrong in this case. The Supreme Court found that there
was no reasonable expectation of privacy in cases of Facebook photos being posted specially if
there is no evidence to prove that there are only a handful of people who may view the same.
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 6
2019 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 11
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Since there is no informational privacy that may be expected on social media, the Court found
the petition to be without merit. Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, September
29, 2014
WRIT OF AMPARO
The mere uttering by a Private individual in a TV Program of threats to retaliate against a
certain person does not make a case for a Petition for the issuance of Writ of Amparo. The court
has the discretion to determine whether or not it has authority to grant the relief in a Petition
for the issuance of Writ of Amparo in the first place.
It is undisputed that petitioner’s Amparo petition before the RTC does not allege any case of
extrajudicial killing and/or enforced disappearance, or any threats thereof. Their petition is
merely anchored on a broad invocation of respondents’ purported violation of their right to life
and security, carried out by private individuals without any showing of direct or indirect
government participation. Thus, it is apparent that their amparo petition falls outside the purview
of A.M. No. 07- 9-12-SC and must fail. Hence, the RTC, properly exercised its discretion to motu
proprio dismiss the same under this principal determination. The court has the discretion to
determine whether or not it has authority to grant the relief in the first place. And when it is
already apparent that the petition falls beyond the purview of the rule, it has the duty to dismiss
the petition so as not to prejudice any of the parties through prolonged but futile litigation.
Spouses Santiago vs. Tulfo, G.R. No. 205039, October 21, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Under Section 20 of the Amparo rule, the court is mandated to archive, and not dismiss, the
case should it determine that it could not proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of
Petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives.
Jurisprudence states that archiving of cases is a procedural measure designed to temporarily
defer the hearing of cases in which no immediate action is expected, but where no grounds exist
for their outright dismissal. Under this scheme, an inactive case is kept alive but held in abeyance
until the situation obtains in which action thereon can be taken. To be sure, the Amparo rule
sanctions the archiving of cases, provided that it is impelled by a valid cause, such as when the
witnesses fail to appear due to threats on their lives or to similar analogous causes that would
prevent the court from effectively hearing and conducting the amparo proceedings which,
however, do not obtain in these cases.
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 6
2019 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 11
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Here, while it may appear that the investigation conducted by the AFP reached an impasse, it
must be pointed out that there was still an active lead worth pursuing by the PNP. Thus, the
investigation had not reached a dead end - which would have warranted the case's archiving -
because the testimony of Gonzales set forth an immediate action on the part of the PNP which
could possibly solve, or uncover new leads, in the ongoing investigation of James's abduction.
Therefore, the RTC's recommendation that these cases should be archived is clearly premature,
and hence, must be rejected. Sec. Ermita vs. Arthur Balao, et.al, G.R. No. 186059, June 21, 2016,
J. Perlas-Bernabe
Substantial evidence is sufficient in proceedings involving petitions for the writ of amparo.
The respondent must show in the return on the writ of amparo the observance of extraordinary
diligence. Once an enforced disappearance is established by substantial evidence, the relevant
State agencies should be tasked to assiduously investigate and determine the disappearance,
and, if warranted, to bring to the bar of justice whoever may be responsible for the
disappearance. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. Republic vs. Cayanan, G.R. No. 181796, November 7, 2017
The writ of amparo does not envisage the protection of concerns that are purely property or
commercial in nature.
The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number
of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective
remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations of or
threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy
beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules.
What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it
a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds. Spouses Nerio vs. Brgy. Captain
Arcayan, G.R. No. 183460, March 12, 2013
CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES
Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact of the judgment, it may
be made in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 6
2019 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 11
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states: Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any person
interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been
recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any
entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil
registry is located. (Emphasis supplied)
Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment
nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the
judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. For the same reason he has the
personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of marriage between Marinay
and Maekara in the civil registry on the basis of the decree of the Japanese Family Court.
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the
integrity of the marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it. There is also
no doubt that he is interested in the cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil
registry, which compromises the public record of his marriage. The interest derives from the
substantive right of the spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve, in limited instances) his most
intimate human relation, but also to protect his property interests that arise by operation of law
the moment he contracts marriage. These property interests in marriage include the right to be
supported "in keeping with the financial capacity of the family" and preserving the property
regime of the marriage. Fujiki vs. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013
Substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected, and the true facts established provided
the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceedings.
We agree with the RTC in ruling that correcting the entry on Onde’s birth certificate that his
parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to "not married" is a substantial correction
requiring adversarial proceedings. Said correction is substantial as it will affect his legitimacy and
convert him from a legitimate child to an illegitimate one. In Republic v. Uy, we held that
corrections of entries in the civil register including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or
filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, involve substantial alterations. Substantial errors in a civil
registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the
error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceedings. Onde vs. Local Civil
Registration of Las Piñas City, G.R. No. 197174, September 10, 2014
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 6
