SC suspends lawyer for defying Court rulings | Sun.Star

See - SC suspends lawyer for defying Court rulings | Sun.Star

"x x x.

THE Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a lawyer for five years for repeatedly ignoring several resolutions of the Court in connection with the administrative case filed against him.

In a recent ruling released by the SC, it ordered the suspension of Atty. Alexander Del Prado for the lawyer's continuous failure to comply with the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the high court.

The SC said that Del Prado's repeated failure to attend court hearings and his failure to comply with the Court’s Resolutions requiring him to comment on the case constitute utter disrespect of the judicial institution.

The case against Atty. Del Prado stemmed from a complaint filed against him by a certain Myrna Deveza for his failure to pay his debt for the lot in Caloocan City which he bought to former amounting to P565,950.

The SC upheld the recommendation of the IBP to suspend the lawyer for five years. It also warned the lawyer that repeated acts can constitute to a higher penalty of the Court. (Sunnex)

x x x."

Foreigners can inherit private lands in the Philippines

See - Foreigners can inherit private lands in the Philippines

"x x x.

In the event the decedent has no legal residence in the Philippines, the Estate Tax Return must be filed with the nearest Philippine Embassy. Also, it must be stressed that the said return must be signed by a certified public accountant, duly accredited by the Philippine Bureau of Internal Revenue. In this connection, nonpayment of the estate tax will put to a halt any registration of the document of transfer with the proper Registry of Deeds and, accordingly, no new title in the heirs’ names will ensue. So the correct tax must be paid first, and paid on time to prevent any penalties and interest.

Estate tax is not a tax on property but one imposed on the privilege of transmitting property upon the death of the owner.

Once the tax has been paid, the Philippine Bureau of Internal Revenue will issue a Certificate Authorizing Registration which should be submitted to the proper Registry of Deeds. Next, upon payment of the registration of fees and surrender of the title still in the decedent's name, a new title will be issued to each heir in accordance with their partition of the estate. However, every land title will carry an inscription that pertains to the possible liability of heirs toward other heirs who were unlawfully deprived of participation in the adjudication of the estate. This entry in the land title is known as “Liabilities of Heirs” pursuant to Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines which will remain recorded in the land title for two years, the purpose of which is to notify prospective buyers about such fact.

PACIFIC DAILY NEWS

Owning land in Philippines when married to a foreigner

For questions or inquiries, you Contact Jeremy O. Panganiban via email atatty_jeremy_o_paganiban@yahoo.com. You can also reach him through Viber by dialing cellular phone no. +63917-8749678.

x x x."

Foreigners can inherit private lands in the Philippines

See - Foreigners can inherit private lands in the Philippines

http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/local/bayanihan/2016/09/17/foreigners-can-inherit-private-lands-philippines/89947474/

"x x x.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution allows the acquiring of private lands by foreigners through inheritance or succession, which is an exception rather than the general rule. For this reason the Philippine Supreme Court, in construing the primary law, restricted it to a situation where the deceased left no last will and testament. This is to avoid an indirect circumvention of the prohibition on acquisition of private lands by foreigners.

How is this possible? The deceased person may have priorly acquired private lands in the Philippines while he or she was still a Filipino citizen, and then married a foreigner. The other instance is when children are born after the deceased got naturalized and he or she did not apply for re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship.

Then we turn to the next question on how the foreigner can get his or her inheritance. First of all, the foreigner must have capacity to succeed (inherit) in accordance with the national law of the decedent. After this is complied with, if there is only one heir, the said heir needs to execute an Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir. In contrast, when there are more than one heir and they agree among themselves to partition the estate of the deceased, they are required under Philippine law to execute an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Partition. In either case, it's required that the decedent have no debts or, if he or she left debts, that they be fully paid.

After which, either document (Affidavit of Adjudication or Extrajudicial Settlement) needs to be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province or city where the deceased last resided. Simultaneous with this requirement is that the foreigner must submit a Notice of Death within two months from the fact of death, and pay within six months from the required tax by filing an Estate Tax Return, together with supporting documents, with the Regional District Office of the Philippine Bureau of Internal Revenue.

x x x."

Different condos foreigners can buy in Philippines

See - Different condos foreigners can buy in Philippines

"x x x.

Foreign/alien acquisition of condominium units in the Philippines is legally allowed only if it does not exceed 40 percent ownership of the condominium project. Moreover, to allow foreigners to do so, a condominium corporation is mandatory because title over the land where the project is built will be held by it. Under Philippine law, foreigners are not allowed to acquire private lands except in cases of intestate succession (without a last will and testament) or in cases of transfers in favor of a former Filipino citizen.

There are a lot of condominium projects within Metro Manila and other cities. Foreigners can invest in this type of real estate since some of the projects are located in prime business centers like Bonifacio Global City, Makati Business District and the Ortigas Center, which are all located in Metro Manila.

A new form of condominium project is flourishing at the University Belt, a stretch of land where several schools can be found, such as: Far Eastern University, University of the East, San Beda College and Centro Escolar University. The type of project at the University Belt is what is known as “condominium dormitory,” wherein a unit’s use is maximized by having many beds. Foreigners can easily profit from this by renting out the unit to several employees and students alike. In fact, there are condominium projects which are near to, or are integrated with, malls such as SM Supermalls, Robinsons and Ayala Land.

There are also condominium projects which are situated in tourist destinations like Baguio City, Benguet and Tagaytay City in Cavite. In these places, the projects are primarily “condotel” or condominiums which are operated like a hotel where the unit you buy can be rented out to transients, visitors, and tourists for a short period of time under a hotel-like management and service.

You might also be wondering if condominiums refer only to high rise or mid-rise buildings otherwise known as vertical condominium projects. This is understandable because we have been accustomed to this type of project, especially in highly populated places; but, the current trend now is that horizontal condominium projects are being developed, which are patterned after townhouses, or cottages near the beach or other vacation spots.

What distinguishes this new type of condominium project from a regular townhouse or cottage is that a Master Deed is required, which must be recorded with the Registry of Deeds in order for it to be legally converted into a condominium project. One other thing is the issuance of a Condominium Certificate of Title instead of the regular land title. However, in case this type of project is opened for foreign ownership, a condominium corporation must be established. Examples of horizontal condominium projects are Kasa Luntian (Green House in English) developed by Ayala Land in Tagaytay City, Cavite and beach front condos in Vista de Loro in the province of Batangas in Luzon.

Jeremy O. Panganiban is a licensed real estate broker and lawyer in Quezon City, Philippines. Contact him at atty_jeremy_o_panganiban@yahoo.com or by phone at +632917-8749678 using viber every Wednesday, Friday and Sunday between 7-8 p.m. Philippine time.

x x x."

SC acquits drug convict over warrantless arrest | Metro, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

See - SC acquits drug convict over warrantless arrest | Metro, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a man convicted by a trial court for illegal drug possession after he was apprehended at a police checkpoint without a warrant of arrest in 2007.

In an 11-page decision released yesterday, the high court’s First Division ordered the dismissal of drug charges against Gerr­jan Manago.

The SC set aside the 2013 ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the conviction of Manago for possession of illegal drugs under Republic Act 9165 by the Cebu City Regional Trial Court.

“Routine inspections do not give police officers discretion to conduct warrantless searches in the absence of probable cause,” read the SC ruling penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

In 2009, Manago was found guilty by the lower court of possession of 0.3852 gram of shabu and sentenced him to 12 years in prison.

The court also ordered Manago to pay a fine of P300,000.

The case reached the CA, which affirmed Manago’s conviction, prompting him to elevate the case to the high court.

x xx ."

UN experts urge the Philippines to stop unlawful killings of people suspected of drug-related offences

See - UN experts urge the Philippines to stop unlawful killings of people suspected of drug-related offences

"x x x.

UN experts urge the Philippines to stop unlawful killings of people suspected of drug-related offences

GENEVA (18 August 2016) – “Allegations of drug-trafficking offences should be judged in a court of law, not by gunmen on the streets,” today said two United Nations human rights experts, while urging the Government of the Philippines to put an end to the current wave of extrajudicial executions and killings in the context of an intensified anti-crime and anti-drug campaign targeting drug dealers and users.

More than 850 people have been killed between 10 May, when Rodrigo Duterte was elected President of the Philippines vowing to crackdown on crime, and 11 August 2016. Over 650 were killed in the last six weeks alone.

“We call on the Philippines authorities to adopt with immediate effect the necessary measures to protect all persons from targeted killings and extrajudicial executions,” said the new UN Special Rapporteur on summary executions, Agnes Callamard.

“Claims to fight illicit drug trade do not absolve the Government from its international legal obligations and do not shield State actors or others from responsibility for illegal killings,” Ms. Callamard stressed. “The State has a legally binding obligation to ensure the right to life and security of every person in the country, whether suspected of criminal offences or not.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Dainius Pūras, noted that “however necessary, responses to the illicit drug trade must be carried out in full compliance with national and international obligations and should respect the human rights of each person.”

“Concerning drug-dependency, this should be treated as a public health issue and justice systems that decriminalise drug consumption and possession for personal use as a means to improve health outcomes,” stressed Mr. Pūras.

During his election campaign and first days in office, Mr. Duterte repeatedly urged law enforcement agencies and the public to kill people suspected of trafficking drugs who don’t surrender, as well as people who use drugs. The President was also reported as promising impunity for such killings and bounties for those who turn in drug dealers ‘dead or alive’.

“Directives of this nature are irresponsible in the extreme and amount to incitement to violence and killing, a crime under international law. It is effectively a license to kill,” the UN expert on summary executions warned. “Intentional lethal use of force is only allowed when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life and should not be used for common policing objectives,” she said.

The Special Rapporteurs welcomed recent reports suggesting that President Duterte is now publicly condemning vigilante justice, and called on all authorities to take a clear and public stance against it. “However,” they underscored, “it is not enough.”

“Incentives to violence such as bounties or the promise of impunity also seriously contravene the rule of law and must end,” the experts said. “All allegations of killings and extrajudicial executions must be promptly and thoroughly investigated. Perpetrators and instigators must be sanctioned without exception.”

Ms. Agnes Callamard (France) is the new Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. She has a distinguished career in human rights and humanitarian work globally. Ms. Callamard is the Director of Columbia Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University and has previously worked with Article 19 and Amnesty International. She has advised multilateral organizations and governments around the world, has led human rights investigations in more than 30 countries, and has published extensively on human rights and related fields. Learn more, log on to: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Executions/Pages/SRExecutionsIndex.aspx

Mr. Dainius Pūras (Lithuania) is the Special Rapporteur appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to help States, and others, to promote and protect the right to the highest attainable standard of health. He is a medical doctor with notable expertise on mental health, child health, and public health policies. Mr. Pûras is a Professor and the Head of the Centre for Child psychiatry social paediatrics at Vilnius University, and teaches at the Faculty of Medicine, Institute of International relations and political science and Faculty of Philosophy of Vilnius University, Lithuania. Learn more, visit: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Health/Pages/SRRightHealthIndex.aspx

The UN Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights, is the general name of the independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms of the Human Rights Council that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

UN Human Rights, country page – Philippines: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/PHIndex.aspx

For more information and media requests, please contact Ms Brenda Vukovic (+41 22 917 9635 / bvukovic@ohchr.org), Jon Izagirre (+41 22 91 79715 / jizagirre@ohchr.org) or write to eje@ohchr.org.

For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts:

Xabier Celaya, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9383 / xcelaya@ohchr.org) 

For your news websites and social media: Multimedia content & key messages relating to our news releases are available on UN Human Rights social media channels, listed below. Please tag us using the proper handles:

Twitter: @UNHumanRights

Facebook: unitednationshumanrights

Instagram: unitednationshumanrights

Google+: unitednationshumanrights

Youtube: unohchr

- See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20388&LangID=E#sthash.xUbFOjuj.dpuf

x x x."

Proc. No. 55 - DECLARING A STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON ACCOUNT OF LAWLESS VIOLENCE IN MINDANAO

See - (90) Facebook

DECLARING A STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON ACCOUNT OF LAWLESS VIOLENCE IN MINDANAO

WHEREAS, Mindanao has had a long and complex history of lawless violence perpetrated by private armies and local warlords, bandits and criminal syndicates, terrorist groups, and religious extremists;

WHEREAS, in recent months, there has been a spate of violent and lawless acts across many parts of Mindanao, including abductions, hostage-takings and murder of innocent civilians, bombing of power transmission facilities, highway robberies and extortions, attacks on military outposts, assassinations media people and mass jailbreaks;

WHEREAS, the valiant efforts of our police and armed forced to quell this armed lawlessness have been met with stiff resistance, resulting in several casualties on the part of government forces, the most recent of which was the death of 15 soldiers in a skirmish with the Abu Sayyaf Group in Patikul, Sulu on 30 August 2016;

WHEREAS, on the night of 2 September 2016, at least 14 people were killed and 67 others were seriously injured in a bombing incident in a night market in Davao City, perpetrated by still unidentified law less elements;

WHEREAS, the foregoing acts of violence exhibit the audacity and propensity of these armed lawless groups to defy the rule of law, sow anarchy, and sabotage the government’s economic development and peace efforts;
WHEREAS, based on government intelligence reports, there exist credible threats of further terror attacks and other similar acts of violence by lawless elements in other parts of the country, including the metropolitan areas;

WHEREAS, under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President, as the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines, may call out such armed forces whenever it becomes necessary to prevent or suppress lawless violence.

NOW THEREFORE, I, RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article VII of the Philippine Constitution, do herby proclaim a state of national emergency on account of lawless violence, and hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to undertake such measures as may be permitted by the Constitution and existing laws to suppress any and all forms of lawless violence in Mindanao and to prevent such lawless violence from spreading and escalating elsewhere in the Philippines, with due regard to the fundamental civil and political rights of our citizens.

This proclamation of a state of national emergency on account of lawless violence shall remain in force and effect until lifted or withdrawn by the President.

4 September 2016. 

(Sgd.) President Rodrigo Roa Duterte

By the President:

(Sgd.) SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA
Executive Secretary

Executive Order No. 02, s. 2016 - Freedom of Information EO

See - Executive Order No. 02, s. 2016 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

Executive Order No. 02, s. 2016

Signed on July 23, 2016

OPERATIONALIZING IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND THE STATE POLICIES TO FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND PROVIDING GUIDELINES THEREFOR

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest, subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law;

WHEREAS, Section 7, Article III of the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to information on matters of public concern;

WHEREAS, the incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free and open exchange of information in a democracy, meant to enhance transparency and accountability in government official acts, transactions, or decisions;

WHEREAS, the Executive Branch recognizes the urgent need to operationalize these Constitutional provisions;

WHEREAS, the President, under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution, has control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, and the duty to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed;

WHEREAS, the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. 10173), ncluding its implementing Rules and Regulations, strengthens the fundamental human right of privacy, and of communication while ensuring the free flow of information to promote innovation and growth;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and existing laws, do hereby order:

SECTION 1. Definition. For the purpose of this Executive Order, the following terms shall mean:

(a) “Information” shall mean any records, documents, papers, reports, letters, contracts, minutes and transcripts of official meetings, maps, books, photographs, data, research materials, films, sound and video recording, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data, computer stored data, any other like or similar data or materials recorded, stored or archived in whatever format, whether offline or online, which are made, received, or kept in or under the control and custody of any government office pursuant to law, executive order, and rules and regulations or in connection with the performance or transaction of official business by any government office.

(b) “Official record/records” shall refer to information produced or received by a public officer or employee, or by a government office in an official capacity or pursuant to a public function or duty.

(c) “Public record/records” shall include information required by laws, executive orders, rules, or regulations to be entered, kept and made publicly available by a government office.

SECTION 2. Coverage. This order shall cover all government offices under the Executive Branch, including but not limited to the national government and all its offices, departments, bureaus, offices, and instrumentalities, including government-owned or -controlled corporations, and state universities and colleges. Local government units (LGUs) are encouraged to observe and be guided by this Order.

SECTION 3. Access to information. Every Filipino shall have access to information, official records, public records and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development.

SECTION 4. Exception. Access to information shall be denied when the information falls under any of the exceptions enshrined in the Constitution, existing law or jurisprudence.

The Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General are hereby directed to prepare an inventory of such exceptions and submit the same to the Office of the President within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of effectivity of this Order.

The Office of the President shall thereafter, immediately circularize the inventory of exceptions for the guidance of all government offices and instrumentalities covered by this Order and the general public.

Said inventory of exceptions shall periodically be updated to properly reflect any change in existing law and jurisprudence and the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General are directed to update the inventory of exceptions as the need to do so arises, for circularization as hereinabove stated.

SECTION 5. Availability of SALN. Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 3 and 4 of this Order, all public officials are reminded of their obligation to file and make available for scrutiny their Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations, and the spirit and letter of this Order.

SECTION 6. Application and Interpretation. There shall be a legal presumption in favor of access to information, public records and official records. No request for information shall be denied unless it clearly falls under any of the exceptions listed in the inventory or updated inventory of exceptions circularized by the Office of the President provided in the preceding section.

The determination of the applicability of any of the exceptions to the request shall be the responsibility of the Head of the Office which is in custody or control of the information, public record or official record, or the responsible central or field officer duly designated by him in writing.

In making such determination, the Head of the Office or his designated officer shall exercise reasonable diligence to ensure that no exception shall be used or availed of to deny any request for information or access to public records, or official records if the denial is intended primarily and purposely to cover up a crime, wrongdoing, graft or corruption.

SECTION 7. Protection of Privacy. While providing access to information, public records, and official records, responsible officials shall afford full protection to the right to privacy of the individual as follows:

(a) Each government office per Section 2 hereof shall ensure that personal information in its custody or under its control is disclosed or released only if it is material or relevant to the subject-matter of the request and its disclosure is permissible under this order or existing law, rules or regulations;

(b) Each government office must protect personal information in its custody or control by making reasonable security arrangements against leaks or premature disclosure of personal information which unduly exposes the individual whose personal information is requested, to vilification, harassment or any other wrongful acts.

(c) Any employee, official or director of a government office per Section 2 hereof who has access, authorized or unauthorized, to personal information in the custody of the office, must not disclose that information except when authorized under this order or pursuant to existing laws, rules or regulation.

SECTION 8. People’s Freedom to Information (FOI) Manual. For the effective implementation of this Order, every government office is directed to prepare within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days from the effectivity of this Order, its own People’s FOI Manual, which shall include among others the following provisions:

(a) The location and contact information of the head, regional, provincial, and field offices, and other established places where the public can obtain information or submit requests;

(b) The person or office responsible for receiving requests for information;

(c) The procedure for the filing and processing of the request as specified in the succeeding section 8 of this Order.

(d) The standard forms for the submission of requests and for the proper acknowledgment of requests;

(e) The process for the disposition of requests;

(f) The procedure for the administrative appeal of any denial for access to information; and

(g) The schedule of applicable fees.

SECTION 9. Procedure. The following procedure shall govern the filing and processing of request for access to information:

(a) Any person who requests access to information shall submit a written request to the government office concerned. The request shall state the name and contact information of the requesting party, provide valid proof of his identification or authorization, reasonably describe the information requested, and the reason for, or purpose of, the request for information: Provided, that no request shall be denied or refused acceptance unless the reason for the request is contrary to law, existing rules and regulations or it is one of the exceptions contained in the inventory or updated inventory of exception as hereinabove provided.

(b) The public official receiving the request shall provide reasonable assistance, free of charge, to enable, to enable all requesting parties and particularly those with special needs, to comply with the request requirements under this Section.

(c) The request shall be stamped by the government office, indicating the date and time of receipt and the name, rank, title and position of the receiving public officer or employee with the corresponding signature, and a copy thereof furnished to the requesting party. Each government office shall establish a system to trace the status of all requests for information received by it.

(d) The government office shall respond to a request fully compliant with requirements of sub-section (a) hereof as soon as practicable but not exceeding fifteen (15) working days from the receipt thereof. The response mentioned above refers to the decision of the agency or office concerned to grant or deny access to the information requested.

(e) The period to respond may be extended whenever the information requested requires extensive search of the government office’s records facilities, examination of voluminous records, the occurrence of fortuitous cases or other analogous cases. The government office shall notify the person making the request of the extension, setting forth the reasons for such extension. In no case shall the extension go beyond twenty (20) working days unless exceptional circumstances warrant a longer period.

(f) Once a decision is made to grant the request, the person making the request shall be notified of such decision and directed to pay any applicable fees.

SECTION 10. Fees. Government offices shall not charge any fee for accepting requests for access to information. They may, however, charge a reasonable fee to reimburse necessary costs, including actual costs of reproduction and copying of the information required, subject to existing rules and regulations. In no case shall the applicable fees be so onerous as to defeat the purpose of this Order.

SECTION 11. Identical or Substantially Similar Requests. The government office shall not be required to act upon an unreasonable subsequent identical or substantially similar request from the same requesting party whose request from the same requesting party whose request has already been previously granted or denied by the same government office.

SECTION 12. Notice of Denial. If the government office decides to deny the request, in whole or in part, it shall as soon as practicable, in any case within fifteen (15) working days from the receipt of the request, notify the requesting party the denial in writing. The notice shall clearly set forth the ground or grounds for denial and the circumstances on which the denial is based. Failure to notify the requesting party of the action taken on the request within the period herein stipulated shall be deemed a denial of the request for access to information.

SECTION 13. Remedies in Cases of Denial of Request for Access to Information.

(a) Denial of any request for access to information may be appealed to the person or office next higher in the authority, following the procedure mentioned in Section 7 (f) of this Order: Provided, that the written appeal must be filed by the same person making the request within fifteen (15) working days from the notice of denial or from the lapse of the relevant period to respond to the request.

(b) The appeal be decided by the person or office next higher in authority within thirty (30) working days from the filing of said written appeal. Failure of such person or office to decide within the afore-stated period shall be deemed a denial of the appeal.

(c) Upon exhaustion of administrative appeal remedies, the requesting part may file the appropriate case in the proper courts in accordance with the Rules of Court.

SECTION 14. Keeping of Records. Subject to existing laws, rules, and regulations, government offices shall create and/or maintain accurate and reasonably complete records of important information in appropriate formats, and implement a records management system that facilitates easy identification, retrieval and communication of information to the public.

SECTION 15. Administrative Liability. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may be a ground for administrative and disciplinary sanctions against any erring public officer or employee as provided under existing laws or regulations.

SECTION 16. Implementing Details. All government offices in the Executive Branch are directed to formulate their respective implementing details taking into consideration their mandates and the nature of information in their custody or control, within one hundred twenty (120) days from the effectivity of this Order.

SECTION 17. Separability Clause. If any section or part of this Order is held unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions not otherwise affected shall remain in full force or effect.

SECTION 18. Repealing Clause. All orders, rules and regulations, issuances or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly: Provided, that the provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 78 (s. 1964), as amended, shall not be deemed repealed pending further review.

SECTION 19. Effectivity. This Order shall take effect immediately upon publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

DONE, in the City of Manila, this 23rd day of July in the year of our Lord two thousand and sixteen.

(Sgd.) RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE

President of the Philippines

By the President:

(Sgd.) SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA

Executive Secretary

Lacson wants to restore PNP subpoena powers | Inquirer News

See - Lacson wants to restore PNP subpoena powers | Inquirer News

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines—Sen. Panfilo Lacson has proposed to restore the authority of the Philippine National Police (PNP) to directly issue subpoenas, a move seen to bolster and speed up the investigative capabilities of the police force amid a ramped up anti-crime campaign under the Duterte administration.

Through Senate Bill No. 1052, Lacson sought to amend the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Act of 1990, which placed the PNP under its purview but stripped the police of the power to subpoena individuals and documents in the course of criminal investigations.

Under the proposal, Lacson, a former PNP chief, wants to revise Section 35 (b)(4) of the DILG law so that the director and deputy directors of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) “shall have the power to administer oath upon cases under investigation and to issue subpoena or subpoena duces tecum (documents).”

“Under the present law, the CIU (criminal investigation unit) is mandated to undertake the monitoring, investigation and prosecution of all crimes involving economic sabotage, and other crimes of such magnitude and extent as to indicate their commission by highly-placed or professional criminal syndicates and organizations,” said Lacson.

“Hence, it is somewhat contradicting that the primary investigative unit does not possess the power to issue administrative subpoenas for the conduct of their mandated duties,” he said in his proposal.

The PNP had been granted the authority to issue subpoeanas through the 1969 measure that defined its powers, including the authority to issue subpoenas by the chief and deputy chief of what was then called the criminal investigation service (CIS).

Section 6 of the old law allowed CIS officials “to administer oaths upon cases under investigation and to issue subpoena or subpoenas duces tecum for the appearance at government expenses of any person for investigation or production of documents and other matters therein.”

The 1990 DILG law, however, repealed such authority.

“This bill seeks to correct this oversight by restoring the power to administer oath and to issue subpoena or subpoena duces tecum previously granted to the CIU Director and his/her deputies. It is submitted that these powers are indispensable for the CIU to carry out its mandated investigatory and prosecutory functions,” Lacson said.

He said giving such powers back to the CIDG “will facilitate the efficient and effective discharge of its functions as an investigative unit.”

He noted that other agencies already exercise such power, including the Office of the Ombudsman, the Department of Justice, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the National Police Commission, the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the inter-agency Cybercrime Investigation Coordination Center. - RAM/rga

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/812904/lacson-wants-to-restore-pnp-subpoena-powers#ixzz4JNCDuSBW

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

SC disbars ‘marrying’ judge, lawyer | Inquirer News

SC disbars ‘marrying’ judge, lawyer | Inquirer News

"x x x.

THE SUPREME Court has disbarred a former judge and a lawyer in a land case for separate cases of gross misconduct and dishonesty.

The high court on Aug. 30 disbarred Cebu City Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Judge Rosabella M. Tormis for “repetitive” acts of solemnizing marriages without a license.

The high tribunal said the misconduct, even if it was committed during her stint as a judge, tainted her qualifications to remain a lawyer.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It is clear that [the] respondent’s repetitive acts of solemnizing marriages without a license showed her proclivity to disrespect the law and showed her lack of good character, and renders her unfit to continue to practice law,” the Supreme Court said.

Earlier, the court dismissed Tormis for her failure to act on cases within the mandatory period.

Taken for P230,000

In a separate decision dated July 19, the high tribunal held lawyer Ferdinand L. Ancheta liable for duping a couple into giving him P230,000 to make arrangements with Court of Appeals justices to reopen a land recovery case after the ruling against them had become final and executory.

The high court ordered Ancheta to return the P230,000 to spouses Gabino and Flordeliza Tolentino, along with interest.

The Tolentinos secured Ancheta’s services after learning too late that the Court of Appeals (CA) in 2001 had affirmed with finality a trial court ruling ordering them to vacate the land.

Their previous counsel, Henry B. So of the Department of Agrarian Reform’s Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, did not inform them of the CA decision before he left.

‘Deceit and evasion’

Ancheta allegedly told the couple he could still file a “motion to reopen appeal case” and asked for P200,000 to make arrangements with the CA justices, in addition to the P30,000 he had gotten for accepting the case. The Tolentinos later learned that no such motion was filed, and lodged a complaint against the lawyer.

The Supreme Court said Ancheta should have known the futility of an appeal. Because of this, it said his “deceit and evasion of duty was manifest.”

His repeated failure to comply with the SC’s orders to respond to the couple’s complaint also “shows a high degree of irresponsibility and betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his character.”

The high court dismissed the disbarment complaint against So because he had already resigned from DAR in 1997, four years before the CA decision was promulgated. Vince F. Nonato

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/812831/sc-disbars-marrying-judge-lawyer#ixzz4JN3aNua8

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

R.A. 7438 - It is the policy of the State to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights.

See - R.A. 7438

Republic Act No. 7438 April 27, 1992

AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::

Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the State to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights.

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers.–

(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.

(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.lawphi1Ÿ

(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.

(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.

(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.

As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

Section 3. Assisting Counsel. – Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by the case, those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes.

The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees;

(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with light felonies;lawphi1©alf

(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with less grave or grave felonies;

(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with a capital offense.

The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before the province pays said fees.

In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

Section 4. Penalty Clause. – (a) Any arresting public officer or employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone acting upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, or from examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).lawphi1©

The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape.

Section 5. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed. Other laws, presidential decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 6. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in any daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

Approved: April 27, 1992.

Marcos burial; AFP Regulation G 161-373 in rel to RA 289, Libingan ng mga Bayani.

See - Leila files suit vs Marcos burial | Inquirer News

"x x x.

SENATOR Leila de Lima filed a legal challenge against plans to transfer the remains of dictator Ferdinand Marcos to Libingan ng mga Bayani Tuesday, becoming the seventh petitioner against the move on the eve of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the divisive issue.

De Lima, in her 38-page petition, said that “no President has the power to rewrite history.”

She argued transferring Marcos’ remains at the heroes’ cemetery would go against the very spirit of the 1987 Constitution, which was crafted precisely to prevent a repeat of the abuses committed under his two-decade regime.

While his departure to Hawaii foreclosed any possibility of conviction over criminal acts, De Lima said that “the Filipino’s rejection of his leadership and the abuses committed by him and under his regime cannot be made clearer under the circumstances.”

“It is thus incumbent upon all of us—senators, other government officials, and citizens of the Republic—to defend the Constitution against the greatest attack levied, not just against any particular provision thereof, but against its very existence and integrity,” De Lima’s petition read.

De Lima said Armed Forces of the Philippines Regulations G 161-373 should be stricken down because it was issued with grave abuse of discretion.

The AFP rules provided “incomplete, whimsical and capricious standards” for qualifications and disqualifications for interment at the heroes’ cemetery, she argued.

She noted that the rules failed to abide by Republic Act No. 289’s provision that heroes worthy of “inspiration and emulation” by succeeding generations should be buried at the cemetery.

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/811271/leila-files-suit-vs-marcos-burial#ixzz4J0GASgVY

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Ordinary action distinguished from special proceeding | Atty. Alvin Claridades

See - Ordinary action distinguished from special proceeding | Atty. Alvin Claridades

"x x x.

Action is the act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while special proceeding is the act by which one seeks to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact.

Hence, action is distinguished from special proceeding in that the former is a formal demand of a right by one against another, while the latter is but a petition for a declaration of a status, right or fact.

Where a party litigant seeks to recover property from another, his remedy is to file an action. Where his purpose is to seek the appointment of a guardian for an insane, his remedy is a special proceeding to establish the fact or status of insanity calling for an appointment of guardianship (Pacific Banking Corp. Employees Org. v. CA, GR 109373. Mar. 20, 1995; 242 SCRA 492).

x x x."

Special proceedings; cases.

"x x x.

Other cases involving special proceedings
Posted on August 31, 2016 by ALVIN CLARIDADES

The other cases involving special proceedings under various laws and rules are:

1. Summary proceedings under EO 209 or the Family Code;
2. Actions mentioned under RA 8369 or the Family Courts Act of 1997:

1. Declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages;
2. Legal separation;
3. Provisional orders on support, custody of minor children and administration of common property; and
4. Violence against women and their children and protection orders.

1. Proceedings under PD 1083 or the Child & Youth Welfare Code, RA 7610 or the Child Abuse Act and RA 7658 or the Child Employment Act:

1. Declaration of status as abandoned, dependent or neglected children;
2. Voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; and
3. Suspension, termination or restoration of parental authority.

1. Proceedings for domestic and inter-country adoption pursuant to RA 8552 and RA 8043;
2. Petition for a Writ of Amparo (AM 07-9-12-SC);
3. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Data (AM 08-1-16-SC);
4. Petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation (Pacific Banking Corp. Employees Org. v. CA, GR 109373. Mar. 27, 1998; 242 SCRA 492);
5. Petition for corporate rehabilitation under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation, AM 00-8-10-SC;
6. Arbitration under a contract or submission shall be deemed a special proceeding (Sec. 22, RA 876); and
7. Proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement or for the vacation, setting aside, correction or modification of an arbitral award and any application with a court for arbitration assistance and supervision (Sec. 47, RA 9285). x x x."

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – COURSE OUTLINE (New Era University College of Law, 1st Semester, AY 2016-2017) | Atty. Alvin Claridades

See - SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – COURSE OUTLINE (New Era University College of Law, 1st Semester, AY 2016-2017) | Atty. Alvin Claridades

"x x x.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – COURSE OUTLINE (New Era University College of Law, 1st Semester, AY 2016-2017)

Posted on August 31, 2016 by ALVIN CLARIDADES

Cases covered by special proceedingsSettlement of Estate of Deceased Persons (Rules 73-75, 76-81, 82-86 and 87-90)SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (New Era University College of Law) – TOPICS AND CASES for SEPTEMBER 6, 2016

(A) Special Proceeding Defined (Rule 72)

(B) Distinction between ordinary civil action and special proceedings

(C) Ordinary action distinguished from special proceeding

 Pacific Banking Corp. Employees Org. v. CA, GR 109373. Mar. 20, 1995; 242 SCRA 492

(D) Nature of special proceedings

(E) Cases covered by special proceedings

(F) Other cases involving special proceedings

(G) Special proceedings; how commenced

(H) Applicable rules in special proceedings

(I) Jurisdiction over special proceedings cases

I. Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons (Rules 73-75, 76-81, 82-86 and 87-90)

Settlement of estate of deceased persons; what it intends to achieve and what it seeks to establish

Modes of settlement of the estate of a deceased person

A. Jurisdiction and Venue

 Mendoza v. Teh, GR 122646. Mar. 14, 1997, 269 SCRA 764

 Natcher v. CA, GR 133000. Oct. 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 385

B. Venue in judicial settlement of estate

 De Borja v. Tan, GR L-6476. Nov. 18, 1955, 97 Phil 872

 Eusebio v. Eusebio, GR L-8409. Dec. 28, 1956, 100 Phil. 593

 Fule v. CA, GR L-40502. Nov. 29, 1976, 74 SCRA 189

C. Extent of jurisdiction of the probate court

 Adapon v. Maralit, GR 46898. Jan. 20, 1940, 69 Phil 383

Bernardo v. CA, GR L-18148. Feb. 28, 1963, 7 SCRA 367

Nepomuceno v. CA, GR L-62952. Oct. 9, 1985, 139 SCRA 206

Acain v. IAC, GR 72706. Oct. 27, 1987, 155 SCRA 100

 Ajero v. CA, GR 106720. Sept. 15, 1994, 236 SCRA 488

 Lim v. CA, GR 124715. Jan. 24, 2000, 323 SCRA 102

 Heirs of Sandejas v. Lina, GR 141634. Feb. 15, 2001, 351 SCRA 183

 Reyes-Mesugas v. Reyes, GR 174835. Mar. 22, 2010, 616 SCRA 345

Agtarap v. Agtarap, GR 177099. June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 455

Powers and duties of the probate court

Bernardo v. CA, GR L-18148. Feb. 28, 1963, 7 SCRA 367

Vda. de Manalo v. CA, GR 129242, Jan. 16, 2001, 349 SCRA 135

Vda. de Ramos v. CA, GR L-40804. Jan. 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 393

Production and Probate of Will (Rules 75 to 79)

Nature of probate proceeding

Guevara v. Guevara, GR L-48840. Dec. 29, 1943, 74 Phil. 479

Who may petition for probate; persons entitled to notice

Alaban v. CA, GR 156021. Sept. 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 697

Allowance or Disallowance of Will

Contents of petition for allowance of will; Jurisdictional facts

Palaganas v. Palaganas, GR 169144. Jan. 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 538

Grounds for disallowing a will; List exclusive

Pecson v. Coronel, GR L-20374, Oct. 11, 1923. 45 Phil. 216

Reprobate; Requisites before will proved outside allowed in the Philippines; Effects of probate

Fluemer v. Hix, GR 32636. Mar. 17, 1930, 54 Phil. 610

Palaganas v. Palaganas, GR 169144. Jan. 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 538

Vda. de Perez v. Tolete, GR 76714. June 2, 1994, 232 SCRA 722

Letters Testamentary and of Administration

When and to whom letters of administration granted

Order of preference

Uy v. CA, GR 167979. Mar. 15, 2006, 484 SCRA 699

Gonzales v. Aguinaldo, GR 74769, Sept. 28, 1990, 190 SCRA 112

Suntay III v. Cojuangco-Suntay, GR 183053. Oct. 10, 2012, 621 SCRA 142

Appointment of co-administrator

Gabriel v. CA, GR 101512. Aug. 7, 1992, 212 SCRA 413

Suntay III v. Cojuangco-Suntay, GR 183053. June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 142

Uy vs. CA, GR 167979. Mar. 16, 2006, 484 SCRA 699

Vda. de De la Rosa v. Heirs of Vda. de Damian, GR 155733. Jan. 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 334

Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary; simultaneous filing of petition for administration

Powers and duties of Executors and Administrators; restrictions on the powers

Lindain v. CA, GR 95305. Aug. 20, 1992, 212 SCRA 725

Appointment of Special Administrator

Grounds for removal of administrator

Claims against the estate

Gabriel v. Bilon, GR 146989. Feb. 07, 2007, 515 SCRA 29

Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. v. Republic-Asahi Glass Corp., GR 147561. June 22, 2006, 492 SCRA 179

Time within which claims shall be filed; exceptions

In the Matter of the Estate of Telesforo de Dios, GR L-7940. Mar. 27, 1913

Statutes of non-claims; purpose of the rule

Rio y Compania v. Maslog, GR L-12302. Apr. 13, 1959, 105 Phil. 452

In the Matter of the Estate of Telesforo de Dios, GR L-7940. Mar. 27, 1913

Claim of executor or administrator against the estate

Payment of debts

Montinola v. Villanueva, GR L-26008, Nov. 4, 1926, 49 Phil. 528

Actions by and against executors and administrators

Actions that may be brought against executors and administrators

Philippine Trust Co. v. Luzon Surety Co., Inc., GR L-13031. May 30, 1961, 2 SCRA 122

Romualdez v. Tiglao, GR L-51151, July 24, 1981, 105 SCRA 762

Requisites before creditor may bring an action for recovery of property fraudulently conveyed by the deceased

Distribution and Partition (Rule 69)

Liquidation of the estate; distribution of decedent’s assets

Vera v. Navarro, GR L-27745. Oct. 18, 1977, 79 SCRA 408

Project of Partition

Cama de Reyes v. Reyes de Ilano, GR L-42092. Oct. 28, 1936, 63 Phil. 629

Remedy of an heir entitled to residue but not given his share

Ramos v. Ortuzar, GR L-3299. Aug. 29, 1951, 89 Phil. 741, 89 Phil. 730

Solivio v. CA, GR 83484. Feb. 12, 1990, 182 SCRA 119

Instances when probate court may issue writ of execution

Vda. De Valera v. Ofilada, GR L-27526. Sept. 12, 1974, 59 SCRA 96

Summary Settlement of Estates (Sec. 3, Rule 74)

Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs, when allowed

Guevara v. Guevara, GR 48840. Dec. 29, 1943, 74 Phil 479

Affidavit of self-adjudication by sole heir (Sec. 1, Rule 74)

Cua v. Vargas, GR No. 156536. Oct. 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 374

Portugal vs. Portugal-Beltran, GR 155555. Aug. 16. 2005, 467 SCRA 184

Vda. de De la Rosa vs. Heirs of Vda. de Damian, GR 155733. Jan. 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 334

Summary Settlement of estates of small value, when allowed (Sec. 2, Rule 74)

Abarro v. De Guia, GR L-47317, June 10, 1941. 72 Phil. 245

Remedies of aggrieved parties after extra-judicial settlement of estate

Pereira v. CA, GR 81147. June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 154

Two-year prescriptive period

PEZA v. Fernandez, GR 138971. June 6, 2001, 358 SCRA 489

Escheat (Rule 91)

Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna v. Colegio de San Jose, GR L-45460. Feb. 25, 1938, 65 Phil. 318

RCBC v. Hi-Tri Development Corp., GR 192413. June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 514

When to file

Requisites for filing petition

City of Manila v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, GR L-10033. Aug. 30, 1917

Remedy of respondent against petition; period for filing a claim

Balais-Mabanag v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, GR 153142. Mar. 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 1

Republic v. CA, GR 143483, Jan. 31, 2002, 375 SCRA 484

Guardianship (Rules 92-97)

Francisco v. CA, GR L-57438. Jan. 3, 1984, 212 Phil. 346

Government of the Philippine Islands v. El Monte De Piedad y Caja De Ahorras De Manila, GR L-9959. Dec. 13, 1916, 35 Phil. 72

General powers and duties of guardians

Conditions of the bond of the guardian

Rule on Guardianship over minor (AM 03-02-05-SC)

Cabales v. CA, GR 162421. Aug. 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 691

Hernandez v. San Juan-Santos, GR 166470, Aug. 7, 2009, 595 SCRA 464

People v. Flores, GR 188315. Aug. 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 478

Uy v. CA, GR 109557. Nov. 29, 2000, 346 SCRA 246

Trustees (Rule 98)

Distinguished from executor/administrator

Conditions of the Board

Requisites for the removal and resignation of a trustee

Grounds for removal and resignation of a trustee

Extent of authority of trustee

Adoption (Rule 99, superseded by the Rule on Adoption per AM 02-6-02-SC)

Distinguish domestic adoption from inter-country adoption

Domestic adoption

Effects of adoption

Instances when adoption may be rescinded

Effects of rescission of adoption

Inter-country adoption

When allowed

Functions of the RTC

“Best interest of minor” standard

Anonymous v. Curamen, AM P-08-2549, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 212

DSWD v. Judge Belen, AM RTJ-96-1362, July 18, 1997

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P. Lim, GR 168992-93. May 21, 2009, 588 SCRA 98

In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, GR 148311. Mar. 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 541

Lahom v. Sibulo, GR 143989, July 14, 2003, 406 SCRA 135

Landingin v. Republic, GR 164948. June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 415

Republic v. Hernandez, GR 117209. Feb. 9, 1996, 253 SCRA 509

Rescission and revocation of adoption (Rule 100, superseded by the Rule on Adoption per AM 02-6-02-SC)

Proceedings for Hospitalization of Insane Persons (Rule 101)

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Rule 102)

Contents of the petition

Contents of the return

Distinguish peremptory writ from preliminary citation

Lee Yick Hon v. Insular Collector of Customs, GR L-16779. Mar. 30, 1921, 41 Phil. 548

When writ not proper/applicable

When writ disallowed/discharged

Distinguish from Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data

Rules on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors (AM No. 03-04-04-SC)

Writ of Amparo (AM No. 07-9-12-SC)

Writ of Habeas Data (AM No. 08-1-16-SC)

Ampatuan v. Macaraig, GR 182497, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 266

Go v. Dimagiba, GR 151876. June 21, 2005, 460 SCRA 451

Go, Sr. v. Ramos, GR 167569. Sept. 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 266

In Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo De Villa, GR 158802. Nov. 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 706

In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus, Ashraf Kunting, GR 167193. Apr. 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 602

Moncupa v. Enrile, GR L-63345. Jan. 30, 1986, 141 SCRA 233

Pulido v. Abu, GR 170924. July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 483

Salientes v. Abanilla, GR No. 162734. Aug. 29, 2006, 500 SCRA 128

So v. Tacla, Jr., GR No. 190108. Oct. 19, 2010, 633 SCRA 563

Vetuz v. Villanueva, GR 169482, Jan. 29, 2008, 543 SCRA 63

Vicente vs. Majaducon, AM RTJ-02-1698, June 23, 2005, 461 SCRA 12

Cases on Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data

Roxas v. Macapagal Arroyo, GR 189155. Sept. 7, 2010, 630 SCRA 211

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, GR 180906. Oct. 7, 2008, 568 SCRA 1

Tapuz v. Del Rosario, GR 182484. June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 768

Change of Name (Rule 103)

Alba v. CA, GR 164041, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 495

Ceruila v. Delantar, GR 140305, Dec. 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 134

Differences under Rule 103, RA 9048 and Rule 108

Re: Final Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the RTC Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac, AM 06-07-414-RTC, Oct. 19, 2007

Republic v. Bolante, GR 160597. July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 729

Republic v. Mercadera, GR 186027. Dec. 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 654

Grounds for Change of Name

Voluntary Dissolution of Corporations – deemed repealed by Sections 117 to 122, Title XIV, Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 or the Corporation Code (Rule 104)

Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of Minor Natural Children (Rule 105)

Constitution of Family Home – deemed repealed by Articles 252 to 253 of Executive Order No. 209 or the Family Code (Rule 106)

Absentees (Rule 107)

Purpose of the Rule

Who may file, when to file

Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry (Rule 108)

Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, GR 186571. Aug. 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 266

Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, GR 189476. Feb. 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 533

Appeals in Special Proceedings (Rule 109)

Judgments and orders for which appeal may be taken

When to appeal

Modes of appeal

Zayco v. Hinlo, Jr., GR 170243, Apr. 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 613

x x x."