execution of the certification against forum shopping by the
attorney-in-fact is not a violation of the requirement that the
parties must personally sign the same: (MONASTERIO-PE VS. TONG,
PERALTA, J.).PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: The writ of injunction should
never issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate
the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to
issue the writ rests in the probability of irreparable injury, the
inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the
multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the
case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be
refused. It is settled that a writ of preliminary injunction should
be issued only to prevent grave and irreparable injury, that is,
injury that is actual, substantial, anddemonstrable. (HEIRS OF
MELENCIO YU vs. CA [2013], PERALTA,J).THE RTC CLEARLY EXCEEDED ITS
JURISDICTION WHEN IT ENTERTAINED THE JOINT MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE AT LARGE.
IT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE JOINT MOTION AS A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION THAT WAS SOLELY FILED BY ACCUSED who was present
during the promulgation. (PEOPLE VS. DE GRANO, 2009, PERALTA,
J.).Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency
of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the
Rules of Court. (Dabuco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133775,
January 20, 2000)A complaint states a cause of action if it avers
the existence of the three essential elements of a cause of action,
namely: (a) The legal right of the plaintiff; (b) The correlative
obligation of the defendant; and (c) The act or omission of the
defendant in violation of said legal right. If the allegations in
the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these elements, the
complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground
of failure to state a cause of action. (Mercado vs. Sps. Espina
[2012], PERALTA, J.)The procedure for the determination of just
compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657, as summarized in Land Bank
of the Philippines vs. Banal, is that initially, the Land Bank is
charged with the responsibility of determining the value of lands
placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their
taking under the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition
arrangement. Thus, in determining just compensation, the RTC is
required to consider the following factors: (1) the acquisition
cost of the land; (2) the current value of the properties; (3) its
nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by the
owner; (5) the tax declarations; (6) the assessment made by
government assessors; (7) the social and economic benefits
contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the
government to the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or
loans secured from any government financing institution on the said
land, if any.(Land Bank vs. Sps. Costo [2012], Peralta, J).
Quo Warranto: A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal
remedy to determine the right or title to the contested public
office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is brought
against the person who is alleged to have usurped, intruded into,
or unlawfully held or exercised the public office. It may be
brought by the Republic of the Philippines or by the person
claiming to be entitled to such office. In quo warranto, the
petitioner who files the action in his name must prove that he is
entitled to the subject public office. In other words, the private
person suing must show a clear right to the contested position.
Otherwise, the person who holds the same has a right to undisturbed
possession and the action for quo warranto may be dismissed. It is
not even necessary to pass upon the right of the defendant who, by
virtue of his appointment, continues in the undisturbed possession
of his office (Arquero vs. CA [2011], PERALTA, J).
Petition [under Rule 65] shall not interrupt the course of the
principal case: In People v. Hernandez, the Court held that delay
resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders
must be read in harmony with Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court which provides that the [p]etition [under Rule 65] shall not
interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been
issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the
case. The trial court was then correct and acting well within its
discretion when it refused to grant petitioners' motions for
postponement mainly because of the pendency of their petition for
transfer of venue (MARI & PEOPLE VS. HON. GONZALES [2011],
PERALTA, J).
The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. If the petition,
regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review
of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the
accused against double jeopardy would be violated. (VILLAREAL VS.
ALIGA, 2014, PERALTA, J.)when a complaint is dismissed without
prejudice at the instance of the plaintiff, pursuant to Section 1,
Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no need to
state in the certificate of non-forum shopping in a subsequent
re-filed complaint the fact of the prior filing and dismissal of
the former complaint. (BENEDICTO vs. LACSON [2010], PERALTA,
J.).
In criminal cases, the grant of demurrer is tantamount to an
acquittal and the dismissal order may not be appealed because this
would place the accused in double jeopardy. Although the dismissal
order is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but only
through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (PEOPLE vs.
ATIENZA, 2012, PERALTA, J.).Forum-shopping can be committed in
three ways: (1) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been
resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia);
(2) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and
with the same prayer, the previous case having been finally
resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3)
by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with
different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground
for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).
(BORRA vs. CA [2013], PERALTA, J.)JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER:It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject
matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is not
affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an
answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become
dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant. (MEDICAL
PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM VS. CULLEN [2013], PERALTA,J.)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:For a writ of preliminary injunction to
issue, the following essential requisites must concur, to wit: (1)
that the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2)
that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, (3)
that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to
prevent serious damage. In the present case, the right of
respondents cannot be said to be clear and unmistakable, because
the prevailing jurisprudence is that the penalty of dismissal from
the service meted on government employees or officials is
immediately executory in accordance with the valid rule of
execution pending appeal uniformly observed in administrative
disciplinary cases. (OMBUDSMAN vs. DE CHAVEZ [2013], PERALTA,
J).
the Supreme Court now has the sole authority to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts. (GSIS
vs. HEIRS OF CABALLERO [2010], PERALTA, J.).In determining whether
petitioner was deprived of this right, the factors to consider and
balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason
therefor; (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and
(d) prejudice caused by such delay. (Mari vs. Gonzales, 2011
Peralta, J.)
MOTION TO DISCHARGE A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT: UNENFORCEABILITY OF
THE CONTRACT AND THE VERACITY OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ALLEGATION OF
FRAUD, PERTAIN TO THE MERITS OF THE MAIN ACTION. HENCE, THESE
ISSUES ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN UP IN RESOLVING THE MOTION TO DISCHARGE,
LEST WE RUN THE RISK OF DECIDING OR PREJUDGING THE MAIN CASE AND
FORCE A TRIAL ON THE MERITS AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS (THE
MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN VS. HON. DUMDUM, JR., [2010],
PERALTA, J).
Instances when presence of accused is required by law: Section
14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in
absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at
certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and
plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever
necessary for identification purposes; and (c) at the promulgation
of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the
accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of
the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived
(PEOPLE vs. DE GRANO, 2009, Peralta, J.).
Well-established is the rule that when a motion to quash in a
criminal case is denied, the remedy is not a petition for
certiorari, but for petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice
to reiterating the special defenses invoked in their motion to
quash The above general rule, however admits of several exceptions,
one of which is when the court, in denying the motion to dismiss or
motion to quash, acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion, then certiorari or prohibition lies.
(JAVIER VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 2009, PERALTA, J.).The Court of Appeals
has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the
Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only.
(OMBUDSMAN vS. VENTURA, 2009, Peralta, J.)
QUAHAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT: In view of the withdrawal of the
Information for Robbery, the quashal of the subject search warrants
and the determination of the issue of whether or not there was
probable cause warranting the issuanceby the RTC of the said search
warrants for respondents alleged acts of robbery has been rendered
moot and academic. (TAN vs. SY TIONG GUE, 2010, PERALTA,J.).
Plain view: Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has
a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to
seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in
evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the following
requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may
be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion
or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view
the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.
The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery
inadvertent. (MICLAT VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).In searches
incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search;
generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search
substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest
if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset
of the search. (SY VS. PEOPLE, 2011, PERALTA, J.).
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION STATES THAT A SEARCH AND CONSEQUENT
SEIZURE MUST BE CARRIED OUT WITH A JUDICIAL WARRANT; OTHERWISE, IT
BECOMES UNREASONABLE AND ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED THEREFROM SHALL BE
INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING. (SY VS. PEOPLE,
2011, PERALTA, J.).
COORDINATION WITH THE PDEA IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT
BEFORE POLICE AUTHORITIES MAY CARRY OUT A BUY-BUST OPERATION. A
BUY-BUST OPERATION IS NOT INVALIDATED BY MERE NON-COORDINATION WITH
THE PDEA. (PEOPLE VS. MANTALABA [2011], PERALTA, J.). GENERALLY, A
CRIMINAL CASE HAS TWO ASPECTS, THE CIVIL AND THE CRIMINAL:
The civil aspect is borne of the principle that every person
criminally liable is also civilly liable. The civil action, in
which the offended party is the plaintiff and the accused is the
defendant, is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right to
institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 1(a)). The law
allows the merger of the criminal and the civil actions to avoid
multiplicity of suits. Thus, when the state succeeds in prosecuting
the offense, the offended party benefits from such result and is
able to collect the damages awarded to him. But, when the trial
court acquits the accused or dismisses the case on the ground of
lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically
extinguished since liability under such an action can be determined
based on mere preponderance of evidence. The offended party may
peel off from the terminated criminal action and appeal from the
implied dismissal of his claim for civil liability. The purpose of
a criminal action, in its purest sense, is to determine the penal
liability of the accused for having outraged the state with his
crime and, if he be found guilty, to punish him for it. In this
sense, the parties to the action are the People of the Philippines
and the accused. The offended party is regarded merely as a witness
for the state. Also in this wise, only the state, through its
appellate counsel, the OSG, has the sole right and authority to
institute proceedings before the CA or the Supreme Court. (BURGOS
vs. CA, G.R. No. 169711)FORECLOSURE AND WRIT OF POSSESSION:
It is settled that questions regarding the validity of a
mortgage or its foreclosure as well as the sale of the property
covered by the mortgage cannot be raised as ground to deny the
issuance of a writ of possession. Any such questions must be
determined in a subsequent proceeding (Philippine National Bank v.
Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29, 2005, 465
SCRA 287) as in fact, herein respondents commenced an action for
Annulment of Certificate of Sale, Promissory Note and Deed of
Mortgage. x x x x Since respondents failed to redeem the mortgage
within the reglementary period, entitlement to the writ of
possession becomes a matter of right and the issuance thereof is
merely a ministerial function (F. David Enterprises v. Insular Bank
of Asia and America, G.R. No. 78714, November 21 1990, 191 SCRA
516, 523). The judge to whom an application for a writ of
possession is filed need not look into the validity of the mortgage
or the manner of its foreclosure. Until the foreclosure sale is
annulled, the issuance of the writ of possession is ministerial
(Philippine National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No.
153951, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 287). In fact, even during the
period of redemption, the purchaser is entitled as of right to a
writ of possession provided a bond is posted to indemnify the
debtor in case the foreclosure sale is shown to have been conducted
without complying with the requirements of the law. More so when,
as in the pres ent case, the redemption period has expired and
ownership is vested in the purchaser. x x x The defaulting
mortgagor is not without any expedient remedy, however. For under
Section 8 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, it can file with the
court which issues the writ of possession a petition for
cancellation of the writ within 30 days after the
purchaser-mortgagee was given possession. IN FINE, it would be a
grievous error for QC-RTC, Branch 77 to deny petitioners motion for
the issuance of a writ of possession (PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK vs.
JAMES NG, et al. G.R. No.187556, May 5, 2010, First Division,
Carpio Morales, J.).CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE:
liabilities of the deceased arising from quasi-contracts should
be filed as claims in the settlement of his estate, as provided in
Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. x x x x We read with
approval the CAs use of the statutory construction principle of lex
specialis derogat generali, leading to the conclusion that the
specific provisions of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court
should prevail over the general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6 of
the Rules of Court; the settlement of the estate of deceased
persons (where claims against the deceased should be filed) is
primarily governed by the rules on special proceedings, while the
rules provided for ordinary claims, including Section 11, Rule 6 of
the Rules of Court, merely apply suppletorily. (Metropolitan Bank
& Trust Company vs. Absolute Management Corporation, G.R. No.
170498, January 9, 2013, Brion, J.)DIRECT AND COLLATERAL ATTACK ON
THE TITLE:
The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside
such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the
attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a
different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as
an incident thereof (Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando
Pampanga vs. Fernando Soriano Jr., et al., G.R. No. 153829, August
17, 2011,VILLARAMA, JR., J.).RES JUDICATA:
For the preclusive effect of res judicata to be enforced, the
following requisites must be present: (1) the judgment or order
sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must
have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the first case must
be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the
first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter and
causes of action. As to the fourth element, it is important to note
that the doctrine of res judicata has two aspects: first, bar by
prior judgment which is provided in Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the
Rules of Court and second, conclusiveness of judgment which is
provided in Section 47 (c) of the same Rule. There is bar by prior
judgment when, as between the first case where the judgment was
rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is
identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But
where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first
and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first
judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and
directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely
involved therein. On the other hand, under the doctrine of
conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly
resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case
between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a
different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of
action is not required but merely identity of issues. (PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK vs. SIA, G.R. No. 165836, February 18, 2009, Second
Division, Quisumbing, J.).INSTANCES WHERE A WRIT OF EXECUTION MAY
BE APPEALED:
1) the writ of execution varies the judgment; 2) there has been
a change in the situation of the parties making execution
inequitable or unjust; 3) execution is sought to be enforced
against property exempt from execution; 4) it appears that the
controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court; 5)
the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains
room for interpretation thereof; or 6) it appears that the writ of
execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in
substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the
judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was
issued without authority. (GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT
LABOR UNIONVS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 183122, JUNE
15, 2011, PEREZ, J.).THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT,
AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY
NOT BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL:
The established exceptions are: (1) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave
abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the
CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of
fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went
beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of
fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the
findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence
and are contradicted by the evidence on record (FILIPINAS FIBER
SYNTHETIC CORPORATION vs. WILFREDO DELOS SANTOS ET AL., G.R. No.
152033, MARCH 16, 2011, PERALTA, J.)THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF
CERTIORARI IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN APPEAL, WHERE
THE LATTER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE:
To be sure, a petition for certiorari is dismissible for being
the wrong remedy. Indeed, we have noted a number of exceptions to
this general rule, to wit: 1) when public welfare and the
advancement of public policy dictate; 2) when the broader interest
of justice so requires; 3) when the writs issued are null and void;
4) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of
judicial authority; 5) when, for persuasive reasons, the rules may
be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate
with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; or 6) in
other meritorious cases. None of the above exceptions are present
in the instant case; hence, we apply the general rule. Respondent
not having availed himself of the proper remedy to assail the
dismissal of the case against petitioners, the dismissal has become
final and executory. (SANTOS vs. ORDA, G.R. No. 189402, May 6,
2010, NACHURA, J.).APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT:
The RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by the
MetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourts,andMunicipal Circuit
Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.Clearly,
the amount involved P13, 300.00 assessed value of the subject
property as declared by respondents, is immaterial for purposes of
the RTCs appellate jurisdiction.All cases decided by the MTC are
generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount
involved. (Sec. 22 of B.P. 129; Federica M. Serrano vs. Spouses
Anselmo and Carmelita Gutierrez, G.R. No. 162366, November 10,
2006, Tinga,J.)A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA
NON FOR THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.
The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions,
such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court
a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the
certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the
lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the
lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the
resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the
interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject
matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the
circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5)
where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme
urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an
order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the
trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower
court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the
proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely
of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised
is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ
SIOK PING TANG vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC.,G.R. No. 162575,
December 15, 2010, PERALTA,J.).DISTINCTION BETWEEN CERTIORARI
REMEDIES UNDER RULES 45 AND 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT:
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the
Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is
not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions,
final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case,
i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings
involved, may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition
for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate
process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil
action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific
grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed
of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal,
including that under Rule 45. (SANTIAGO CUA, JR., et. al. vs.
MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN et. al., G.R. No. 181455-56, December 4, 2009,
CHICO-NAZARIO,J.).WAYS OF COMMITTING FORUM SHOPPING:
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing
multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same
prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the
ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases
based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous
case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal
is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of
action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis
pendentia or res judicata). x x x If the forum shopping is not
considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be
dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of either litis
pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum shopping is
willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two)
actions shall be dismissed with prejudice. (CHUA vs. METROPOLITAN
BANK & TRUST CO. G.R. No. 182311, August 19, 2009, Third
Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY OPPOSE THE
ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY:
An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be
benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim
against the estate, such as a creditor. The interest must be
material and direct, and not merely indirect or contingent. (Edgar
San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis, G.R. No. 133743, February 6, 2007,
Rodolfo San Luis vs. Felicidad Sagalongos, G.R. No. 134029,
February 6, 2007, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.).AN ADMISSION, VERBAL OR
WRITTEN, MADE BY A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
SAME CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF:
It may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b)
in the course of the trial either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial
proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case. When made in the same
case in which it is offered, no evidence is needed to prove the
same and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been
made through palpable mistake or when no such admission was made.
The admission becomes conclusive on him, and all proofs submitted
contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored,
whether an objection is interposed by the adverse party or not.
(Republic of the Philippine vs. Estate of Hans Menzi, G.R. No.
I83446, November 13, 2012, Perez, J.)WRITING OR DOCUMENT MAY BE
PROVEN AS PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL RECORD OF A FOREIGN COUNTRTY:
As held in Garcia vs. Recio, 418 Phil. 723, (2001), divorce
obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the
best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. The decree
purports to be a written act or record of an act of an official
body or tribunal of a foreign country. Under Sections 24 and 25 of
Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as
a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an
official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer
having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in
the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate
issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the
Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his
office. (Merope Enriquez Vda. De Catalan vs. Louella A.
Catalan-Lee, G. R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012, Sereno, J.).MOTION
FOR NEW TRIAL:
New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a
judgment or prevent the failure of justice. The effect of an order
granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous adjudication so
that the case may be tried de novo for the purpose of rendering a
judgment in accordance with law, taking into consideration the
evidence to be presented during the second trial. Consequently, a
motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or
promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a final order. A motion
for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a
judgment and the judgment is not yet final. (Nemia Castro vs.
Rosalyn Guevarra and Jamir Guevarra, G.R. No. 192737, April 25,
2012, MENDOZA, J.).HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED:
Well-entrenched is the rule that resort to handwriting experts
is not mandatory.handwriting experts, while probably useful, are
not indispensable in examining or comparing handwritings or
signatures.This is so since under Section 22, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence, the handwriting of a person may be
proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
person, because he has seen the person write; or has seen writing
purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or has been
charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person.Moreover, the opinion of a non-expert witness, for which
proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding the
handwriting or signature of a person with which he has sufficient
familiarity. (Fullero vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
170583, September 12, 2007, Chico-Nazario,J.)REFERRAL OF SOME CASES
FOR COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
The following are under the mandatory coverage for court-annexed
mediation (CAM) and judicial dispute resolution (JDR): a) all civil
cases and the civil liability of criminal cases covered by the Rule
on Summary Procedure, including the civil liability for violation
of B.P. 22, except those which by law may not be compromised; b)
special proceedings for the settlement of estates; c) all civil and
criminal cases filed with a certificate to file action issued by
the Punong Barangay or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the
Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; d) the civil aspect of
Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code; e) the
civil aspect of less grave felonies punishable by correctional
penalties not exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where the offended
party is a private person; f) the civil aspect of estafa, theft and
libel; g) All civil cases and probate proceedings, testate and
intestate, brought on appeal from the exclusive and original
jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33,
par. (1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; h) all cases
of forcible entry and unlawful detainer brought on appeal from the
exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level
courts under Section 33, par. (2) of the Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980; i) all civil cases involving title to or possession of
real property or an interest therein brought on appeal from the
exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level
courts under Section 33, par.(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980; and j) all habeas corpus cases decided by the first
level courts in the absence of the Regional Trial Court judge, that
are brought up on appeal from the special jurisdiction granted to
the first level courts under Section 35 of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980 (A-114. No, 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA).EXECUTION
AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND DISCRETION:
Normally, execution will issue as a matter of right only (a)
when the judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the
judgment debtor has renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c)
when the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been
filed; or (d) when, having been filed, the appeal has been resolved
and the records of the case have been returned to the court of
origin. Execution pending appeal is the exception to the general
rule. As such exception, the courts discretion in allowing it must
be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the existence of good
reasons. "Good reasons," it has been held, consist of compelling
circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment
becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing
the injury or damages that might result should the losing party
secure a reversal of the judgment. Lesser reasons would make of
execution pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude
and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity (ROSARIO T. FLORENDO
vs. PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP., G.R. No. 167976, January 20, 2010,
ABAD, J.).NOTICE OF DISMISSAL:
The trial court has no discretion or option to deny a notice of
dismissal since dismissal by the plaintiff under Section 1, Rule 17
is a matter of right. (O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development
Corporation vs. Macamir Realty and Development Corporation, G.R.
No. 135803, March 28, 2006, Tinga,J.)OPINION OF AN EXPERT
WITNESS:
The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not
upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false,
but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out
distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and
between genuine and false specimens of writing which would
ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer.
(Felizardo S. Obando and Juan S. Obando vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 138696, July 7, 2010).A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FIULING OF A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI:
Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for
reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a
petition for certiorari. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja, G.R. No.
169241, May, 2 2006, 488 SCRA 574, 580). Its purpose is to grant an
opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error
attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual
circumstances of the case (Estate of Salvador Serra Serra v. Heirs
of Primitivo Hernaez, 466 SCRA 120, 127 (2005); National Housing
Authority v. Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 58, 64 (2001). The rule
is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1)
where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has
no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari
proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower
court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower
court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of
the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of
the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the
action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion
for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was
deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
(6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is
urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is
improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a
nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex
parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
(9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest
is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or
where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG vs.
SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC.,G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010,
PERALTA,J.).COURTS ARE TASKED TO DETERMINE NOTHING MORE THAN THE
EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF A WILL IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS. DUE EXECUTION
OF THE WILL OR ITS EXTRINSIC VALIDITY PERTAINS TO WHETHER THE
TESTATOR, BEING OF SOUND MIND, FREELY EXECUTED THE WILL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMALITIES PRESCRIBED BY LAW:
The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at
the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes
the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less,
before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person
who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator
made it during a lucid interval. x x x x An essential element of
the validity of the Will is the willingness of the testator or
testatrix to execute the document that will distribute his/her
earthly possessions upon his/her death. (Antonio B. Baltazar et al.
vs. Lorenzo Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012, DEL CASTILLO,
J.).SANDIGANBAYAN:
Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be
appealable to the Supreme Court by way of petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 raising pure questions of law. Certiorari
under Rule 65 is not the remedy (People vs. Espinosa, G.R. Nos.
153714-20, August 15, 2003).POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING:
The DNA test availed of by a person already convicted under a
final and executory judgment is termed "post-conviction" DNA
testing. The Rules on DNA Evidence allows a post-conviction DNA
testing. It may be available to (a) prosecution, or (b) to the
person convicted by a final and executory judgment provided that
the following requirements are met: (a) a biological sample exists;
(b) such sample is relevant to the case; and (c) the testing would
probably result in the several of the judgment of conviction (Sec.
6, Rules on DNA Evidence). The remedy available to the convict if
the result of the post-conviction DNA testing is favorable to him
includes: (a) filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the court of origin; (b) the court shall conduct a hearing and in
case the court finds that the petition is meritorious, it shall
reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release
of the convict, unless his detention is justified for a lawful
cause (Section 10, Rules on DNA Evidence).DEATH PENALTY OR CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT:
The provision provides that where the penalty imposed by the RTC
is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal is made
directly to this Court by filing a notice of appeal with the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by
serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. On the other hand, a
case where the penalty imposed is death will be automatically
reviewed by the Court without a need for filing a notice of appeal.
However, People vs. Mateo G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004
modified these rules by providing an intermediate review of the
cases by the CA where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
life imprisonment, or death. Pursuant to Mateos ruling, the Court
issued A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC 2004-10-12, amending the pertinent rules
governing review of death penalty cases. Also affecting the rules
on appeal is the enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines,
which took effect on June 29, 2006. Under Sec. 2 of RA 9346, the
imposition of the death penalty is prohibited, and in lieu thereof,
it imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated
makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC); or life imprisonment, when the law violated does not
make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.
Consequently, in the provisions of the Rules of Court on appeals,
death penalty cases are no longer operational. It is a settled rule
that substantiated factual findings of the appellate court,
affirming those of the trial court, are conclusive on the parties
and may not be reviewed on appeal. (People vs. Abon G.R. No. 169245
February 15, 2008 Velasco, Jr., J.)PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:
A prejudicial question is defined as: x x x one that arises in a
case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate
from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to
suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case
involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the
issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of
the accused would necessarily be determined. (JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL
V. MARIA CHRYSANTINE L. PIMENTEL & PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 172060,
SEPTEMBER 13, 2010, CARPIO, J.).PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT:
Agreements or admissions made during the pre-trial cannot be
used against the accused unless they are reduced in writing and
signed by the accused and counsel (Sec. 2, Rule 118, Rules of
Court).LEGAL STANDING OF THE OFFENDED PARTIES IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO
SEEK REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER GRANTING BAIL TO THE
ACCUSED ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF STRONG EVIDENCE OF GUILT:
Actions essentially involving the interest of the state, if not
initiated by the Solicitor General, are, as a rule summarily
dismissed. Here, the question of granting bail to the accused is
but an aspect of the criminal action, preventing him from eluding
punishment in the event of conviction. The grant of bail or its
denial has no impact on the civil liability of the accused that
depends on conviction by final judgment. Here, respondent Co has
already been arraigned. Trial and judgment, with award for civil
liability when warranted, could proceed even in his absence. In
Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, 385 Phil. 208 (2000), the Supreme
Court allowed the offended party to challenge before it the trial
court's order granting bail. But in that case, the trial court
gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
granting bail without conducting any hearing at all. Thus, to
disallow the appeal on the basis of lack of intervention of the OSG
would "leave the private complainant without any recourse to
rectify the public injustice." It is not the case here. The trial
court took time to hear the parade of witnesses that the
prosecution presented before reaching the conclusion that the
evidence of guilt of respondent Co was not strong. (BURGOS vs. CA,
G.R. No. 169711, February 08, 2010, ABAD, J.).CLAIM OF EXECUTOR OR
ADMINISTRATOR AGAINST THE ESTATE:
From an estate proceeding perspective, the Special
Administrator's commission is no less a claim against the estate
than a claim that third parties may make. Section 8, Rule 86 of the
Rules recognizes this when it provides for "Claim of Executor or
Administrator Against an Estate." Under Section 13 of the same
Rule, the action of the court on a claim against the estate "is
appealable as in ordinary cases." Hence, by the express terms of
the Rules, the ruling on the extent of the Special Administrator's
commission - effectively, a claim by the special administrator
against the estate - is the lower court's last word on the matter
and one that is appealable. (ATTY. GEORGE S. BRIONES vs. LILIA J.
HENSON-CRUZ, RUBY J. HENSON, and ANTONIO J. HENSON, G.R. No.
159130, August 22, 2008, BRION, J.)APPEALS:
It is the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case that the
appeal throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of
the appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned (MICHAEL
SAN JUAN VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 177191, MAY 30, 2011, NACHURA,
J.)GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION:
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The
abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion and hostility. The subject Resolutions having
been issued in accordance with law and existing jurisprudence, no
grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed to the appellate court.
(Marcelo G. Ganaden al. vs. Fermin P. Lanag, Sr., et al., G.R. Nos.
170500 & 170510-11 June 1, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).DEMAND IS
NOT REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF REPLEVIN ACTION:
For a writ of replevin to issue, all that the applicant must do
is to file an affidavit and bond, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 60 of
the Rules, which states:Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond: The applicant
must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person who
personally knows the facts:(a) That the applicant is the owner of
the property claimed, particularly describing it, or is entitled to
the possession thereof;(b) That the property is wrongfully detained
by the adverse party, alleging the cause of detention thereof
according to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief;(c)
That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax
assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of
execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under
custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such
seizure or custody; and(d) The actual market value of the
property.The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the
adverse party in double the value of the property as stated in the
affidavit aforementioned for the return of the property to the
adverse party if such return be adjudged, and for the payment to
the adverse party of such sum as he may recover from the applicant
in the action (emphjasis supplied). The Supreme Court see nothing
in these provisions which requires the applicant to make a prior
demand on the possessor of the property before he can file an
action for a writ of replevin. Thus, prior demand is not a
condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin. More
importantly, Navarro is no longer in the position to claim that a
prior demand is necessary, as he has already admitted in his
Answers that he had received the letters that Karen Go sent him,
demanding that he either pay his unpaid obligations or return the
leased motor vehicles. Navarros position that a demand is necessary
and has not been made is therefore totally unmeritorious. (ROGER V.
NAVARRO, vs. HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, G.R. No. 153788, November 27,
2009, BRION, J.).REQUISITES FOR INTERPLEADER:
1. The plaintiff claims no interest in the subject matter or his
claim thereto is not disputed;2. The parties to be interpleaded
must have adverse or conflicting claims to the property in
possession or custody of the plaintiff. 3. The subject matter of
the adverse claims must be one and the same.BY ESCAPING PRISON,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT IMPLIEDLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL:
Although Rule 124, Section 8 particularly applies to the Court
of Appeals, it has been extended to the Supreme Court by Rule 125,
Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Notwithstanding, the escape of the accused-appellant did not
preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising its review
jurisdiction, considering that what was involved was capital
punishment.Automatic review being mandatory, it is not only a power
of the court but a duty to review all death penalty cases. (People
vs. Esparas, G.R. No. 120034, August 20, 1996). By escaping prison,
accused-appellant impliedly waived his right to appeal.(Peoplevs.
Francisco Taruc, G.R. No. 185202, February 18, 2009,
Chico-Nazario,J.)OBSCENE MATERIALS OR PORNOGRAPHIC FILES:
While it may be true that the criminal case for violation of
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code was dismissed as there was no
concrete and strong evidence pointing to them as the direct source
of the subject pornographic materials, it cannot be used as basis
to recover the confiscated hard disks. At the risk of being
repetitious, it appearsundisputed that the seized computer units
belonging to them contained obscene materials or pornographic
files. Clearly, petitioners had no legitimate expectation of
protection of their supposed property rights. (Nogales vs. People,
G.R. No. 191080, November 21, 2011, Mendoza,J.)MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL:
New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a
judgment or prevent the failure of justice. Thus, the Rules allows
the courts to grant a new trial when there are errors of law or
irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
committed during the trial, or when there exists newly discovered
evidence. The grant or denial of a new trial is, generally
speaking, addressed to the sound discretion of the court which
cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse thereof is shown.
This Court has repeatedly held that before a new trial may be
granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be
shown (1) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that
such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the
trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it
is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching;
and (4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably
change the judgment if admitted. If the alleged newly discovered
evidence could have been very well presented during the trial with
the exercise of reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered
newly discovered (MANUEL YBIERNAS ET AL. VS. ESTER TANCO GABALDON
ET AL., G.R. NO.178925, JUNE 1, 2011, NACHURA, J.).MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION:
Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion for
reconsideration of the judgment of conviction may be filed within
15 days from the promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the
final order appealed from. Failure to file a motion for
reconsideration within the reglementary period renders the subject
decision final and executor (MAPAGAY vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 178984,
August 19, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).DEAD MANS
STATUTE:
The Dead Mans Statute provides that if one party to the alleged
transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or
other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to
the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and
unexplained account of the transaction. But before this rule can be
successfully invoked to bar the introduction of testimonial
evidence, it is necessary that: 1.The witness is a party or
assignor of a party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted; 2.The action is against an executor or administrator or
other representative of a deceased person or a person of unsound
mind; 3.The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand
against the estate of such deceased person or against person of
unsound mind; and 4.His testimony refers to any matter of fact
which occurred before the death of such deceased person or before
such person became of unsound mind. Well entrenched is the rule
that when it is the executor or administrator or representatives of
the estate that sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein
respondent, may testify to occurrences before the death of the
deceased to defeat the counterclaim. Moreover, as defendant in the
counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified from testifying as to
matters of fact occurring before the death of the deceased, said
action not having been brought against but by the estate or
representatives of the deceased. (Sunga-Chan vs.Chua, G.R. No.
143340, August 15, 2001, Gonzaga-Reyes, J.).OBJECT EVIDENCE:
NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE: Physical evidence is a mute but
eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy
of trustworthy evidence. On many occasions, the Supreme Court has
relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the
truth. Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the
testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Supreme
Court has consistently ruled that the physical evidence should
prevail. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Reyes, G.R. No.
157177, February 11, 2008, Austria-Martinez, J.).RULES DNA
EVIDENCE:
DNA is an organic substance found in a persons cells which
contains his or her genetic code.Except for identical twins, each
persons DNA profile is distinct and unique. The purpose of DNA
testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between the
evidence sample and the reference sample. In assessing the
probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider,
among others things, the following data:a) How the samples were
collected; b) How they were handled; c) The possibility of
contamination of the samples; d) The procedure followed in
analyzing the samples; e) Whether the proper standards and
procedures were followed in conducting the tests; and f) The
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. (People vs.
Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656.May 9, 2002, Per Curiam).RECEIVERSHIP:
The purpose of a receivership is to protect and preserve the
rights of the parties during the pendency of the main action.
Receivership is also aimed at preservation of, and at making more
secure, existing rights. It cannot be used as an instrument for the
destruction of those rights.IN THE APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, THE SURVIVING SPOUSE IS PREFERRED OVER
THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE DECEDENT:
When the law speaks of "next of kin", the reference is to those
who are entitled, under the statute of distribution, to the
decedents property; or one whose relationship is such that he is
entitled to share in the estate as distributed, or, in short, an
heir. In resolving, therefore, the issue of whether an applicant
for letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir of the
decedent, the probate court perforce has to determine and pass upon
the issue of filiation. A separate action will only result in a
multiplicity of suits. (Belen Sagad Angeles, vs. Aleli "Corazon"
Angeles Maglaya, G.R. No. 153798 September 2, 2005, GARCIA,
J.).HABEAS CORPUS AS A POST-CONVICTION REMEDY:
The writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention in which individuals are deprived of
liberty. The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody
is under a judicial process or by virtue of a valid
judgment.However, as a post-conviction remedy, it may be allowed
when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the
following exceptional circumstances is attendant: (1) there has
been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the
restraint of a person; (2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose
the sentence; or (3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus
voiding the sentence as to such excess. (Andal v. People, 307 SCRA
605 [1999]; Go vs. Dimagiba, G.R. No. 151876, June 21, 2005).