The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership of properties for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the inventory to be submitted by the administrator, but its determination shall only be provisional unless the interested parties are all heirs of the decedent, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired. Its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the determination of the status of each heir and whether property included in the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse.
Author Archives: Addie Antazo
MENDOZA vs. ALLAS and OLORES, G.R. No. 131977 February 4, 1999
Facts: Petitioner Pedro Mendoza joined the Bureau of Customs in 1972. He was appointed Customs Service Chief of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (CIIS). In 1989, the position of Customs Service Chief was reclassified by the Civil Service as “Director III” in accordance with Republic Act No. 6758 and National Compensation Circular No. 50.Continue reading “MENDOZA vs. ALLAS and OLORES, G.R. No. 131977 February 4, 1999”
Rules of Court (Simplified and Tagalized/Taglish)
Civil Procedure Rule 1 General Provision Rule 2 Cause of Action Rule 3 Parties to Civil Actions Rule 4 Venue of Actions Rule 5 Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts Rule 6 Kinds of Pleadings Rule 7 Parts of a Pleading Rule 8 Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings Rule 9 Effect of Failure to PleadContinue reading “Rules of Court (Simplified and Tagalized/Taglish)”
The Iglesia De Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines, Inc., Represented By Its President, Francisco Galvez, vs. Loida Dela Cruz Using The Name Church Of Jesus Christ, “New Jerusalem” – G.R. No. 208284, April 23, 2018,
when the defendant raises the defense of ownership in [her] pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. In other words, where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right, to possess the property. However, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession, adjudication of the ownership issue is not final and binding, but only for the purpose of resolving the issue or possession.
The principal issue must be possession de facto, or actual possession, and ownership is merely ancillary to such issue. The summary character of the proceedings is designed to quicken the determination of possession de facto in the interest of preserving the peace of the community, but the summary proceedings may not be proper to resolve ownership of the property. Consequently, any issue on ownership arising in forcible entry or unlawful detainer is resolved only provisionally for the purpose of determining the principal issue of possession.
SPOUSES MARQUEZ, vs. SPOUSES ALINDOG, G.R. No. 184045, January 22, 2014
Yes, It is an established rule that the purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is entitled to the possession of the property and can demand that he be placed in possession of the same either during (with bond) or after the expiration (without bond) of the redemption period therefor.
The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a ministerial act. After the consolidation of title in the buyer’s name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is merely a ministerial function. The trial court has no discretion on this matter. Hence, any talk of discretion in connection with such issuance is misplaced.
Belo Medical Group, Inc. vs.Jose L. Santos and Victoria G. Belo, – G.R. No. 185894, August 30, 2017
To determine whether an intra-corporate dispute exists and whether this case requires the application of these rules of procedure, this Court evaluated the relationship of the parties. The types of intra-corporate relationships is as follows:
[a] between the corporation, partnership or association and the public;
[b] between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members, or officers;
[c] between the corporation, partnership or association and the state in so far as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and
[d] among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves.
For as long as any of these intra-corporate relationships exist between the parties, the controversy would be characterized as intra-corporate.
The nature of controversy test is another means to determine if the dispute should be considered as intra-corporate. SC held that it was not just the relationship of the parties that mattered but also the conflict between them. The purpose and the wording of the law escapes the respondent. Nowhere in said decree do we find even so much as an intimidation that absolute jurisdiction and control is vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission in all matters affecting corporations. To uphold the respondent’s argument would remove without legal imprimatur from the regular courts all conflicts over matters involving or affecting corporations, regardless of the nature of the transactions which give rise to such disputes. The courts would then be divested of jurisdiction not by reason of the nature of the dispute submitted to them for adjudication, but solely for the reason that the dispute involves a corporation. This cannot be done. To do so would not only be to encroach on the legislative prerogative to grant and revoke jurisdiction of the courts but such a sweeping interpretation may suffer constitutional infirmity.
Applying the nature of the controversy test, this is still an intra-corporate dispute. The Complaint for interpleader seeks a determination of the true owner of the shares of stock registered in Santos’ name. Ultimately, however, the goal is to stop Santos from inspecting corporate books. This goal is so apparent that, even if Santos is declared the true owner of the shares of stock upon completion of the interpleader case, Belo Medical Group still seeks his disqualification from inspecting the corporate books based on bad faith. Therefore, the controversy shifts from a mere question of ownership over movable property to the exercise of a registered stockholder’s proprietary right to inspect corporate books.
Cayabyab vs. Dimson – G.R. No. 223862, July 10, 2017
Facts: Issue: Whether the respondent is entitled to an Injunctive relief. Held: No, a writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO are injunctive reliefs and preservative remedies for the protection of substantive rights and interests. To be entitled to the injunctive writ, the applicant must show that: (a) there exists a clear and unmistakable rightContinue reading “Cayabyab vs. Dimson – G.R. No. 223862, July 10, 2017”
Novecio vs. Lim – G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015
Facts: Issue: Whether the CA erred in denying the Petitioner the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Held: Yes, In a prayer for preliminary injunction, the plaintiff is not required to submit conclusive and complete evidence. He is only required to show that he has an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint.Continue reading “Novecio vs. Lim – G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015”
Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, April 18, 2017
Facts: On 12 September 2014, the Knights of Rizal (KOR), a “civic, patriotic, cultural, nonpartisan, non-sectarian and non-profit organization” created under Republic Act No. 646, filed a Petition for Injunction seeking a temporary restraining order, and later a permanent injunction, against the construction of DMCIPDI’s Torre de Manila condominium project. The KOR argues that theContinue reading “Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 213948, April 18, 2017”
Solid Builders Inc. vs. China Bank, G.R. No. 179665, April 3, 2013
Preliminary injunction At times referred to as the “Strong Arm of Equity,” we have consistently ruled that there is no power the exercise of which is more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection than the issuance of an injunction. It should only be extended in cases of great injury where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages; “in cases of extreme urgency; where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant’s favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s right against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and where the effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to reestablish and maintain a preexisting continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation.”