OCA v. Ladaga,  AC P-99-1287, January 26, 2001 FACTS On August 31, 1998, respondent Atty. Misael Ladaga Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC of Makati, Branch 133, requested the Court Administrator, Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, for authority to appear as pro bono counsel of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, in a Criminal Case for Falsification of Public Document before the MTC of Quezon City, Branch 40. Pending his request, Lisa Payoyo Andres, the private complainant of the criminal case sent a letter to the Court Administrator requesting for a certification with regards to Atty. Ladaga's authority to appear as counsel for the accused. On September 14, 1998, Atty. Ladaga admitted before the OCA that he had appeared in said criminal case without prior authorization. He reasoned out that his appearance in the criminal case did not prejudice his office nor the interest of the public since he did not take advantage of his position and that his appearances in court were covered by leav...

Statute of Non-Claims vs. Statute of Limitations Santos vs. Manarang,  G.R. No. L-88235, 19 March 1914 FACTS Don Lucas de Ocampo died on November 18, 1906, possessed of certain real and personal property which, by his last will and testament, he left to his three children. The fourth clause of this will reads as follows: "I also declare that I have contracted the debts detailed below, and it is my desire that they may be religiously paid by my wife and executors in the form and at the time agreed upon with my creditors.” Among the debts mentioned in the list referred to are two in favor of the plaintiff, Isidro Santos; one due on April 14, 1907, for P5,000, and various other described as falling due at different dates (the dates are not given) amounting to the sum of P2,454. The will was duly probated and a committee was regularly appointed to hear and determine such claims against the estate as might be presented. This committee submitted its report to the court on June 2...

Pimentel et al. v. Legal Education Board, et al.  G.R. No. 230642, Sept. 10, 2019 FACTS Prompted by clamors for the improvement of the system of the legal education on account of the poor performance of law students and law schools in the bar examinations, the Congress passed into law R.A. No. 7662 which created the LEB. The LEB enacted Memorandum No. 7, series of 2016 requiring all those seeking admission to the basic law course to take and pass a nationwide uniform law school admission test known as Philsat. Petitions filed a petition for prohibition principally seeking that R.A. No. 7662 be declared unconstitutional and that the creation of the LEB be invalidated together with all its issuances, most especially the PhiLSAT, for encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Court concerning admissions to the practice of law; They prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the LEB from conducting the PhiLSAT. Whether or not the Court has...

Cayetano v. Monsod  G.R. No. 100113, Sept. 3, 1991 FACTS Renato L. Cayetano filed a petition challenging the qualification of Christian Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) after being appointed by President Corazon C. Aquino and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The crux of Cayetano’s petition is that Monsod does not meet the constitutional requirement of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Monsod, a member of the Philippine Bar since passing the bar examinations in 1960, was nominated by President Aquino in a letter received by the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. The Commission on Appointments confirmed Monsod’s nomination on June 5, 1991. Subsequently, Monsod took his oath of office and assumed the position on June 18, 1991. Cayetano, as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, praying that the confirmation and appointment of Monsod be declared null and vo...

c. Guillas vs. Judge CFI of Pampanga,  43 SCRA 111 FACTS It appears from the records that Jacinta Limson de Lopez, of Guagua, Pampanga was married to Alejandro Lopez y Siongco. They had no children. On April 28, 1936, Jacinta executed a will instituting her husband Alejandro as her sole heir and executor. In a Resolution dated October 26, 1953 in Sp. Proc. No. 894 entitled "En el Asunto de la Adopcion de la Menor Juanita Lopez y Limson" (pp. 92-94, 103, rec.), herein petitioner Juanita Lopez, then single and now married to Federico Guilas, was declared legally adopted daughter and legal heir of the spouses Jacinta and Alejandro. After adopting legally herein petitioner Juanita Lopez, the testatrix Doña Jacinta did not execute another will or codicil so as to include Juanita Lopez as one of her heirs. After Jacinta's death, a project of partition was executed recognizing Juanita's right to inherit certain properties. However, Alejandro failed to deliver her share,...

Production and Probate of Will San Luis vs. San Luis,  G.R. No. 133743, 06 February 2007 FACTS The instant case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisimo T. San Luis, former governor of the Province of Laguna. Felicisimo was married three times. His first wife, Virginia Sulit, predeceased him in 1963. He later married Merry Lee Corwin in 1968, but their marriage ended in divorce in 1973. In 1974, he married respondent Felicidad San Luis, with whom he lived until his death on December 18, 1992. Following his death, Felicidad filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, alleging that at the time of his death, Felicisimo was residing in New Alabang Village, Alabang, Metro Manila. Petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, Felicisimo’s son from his first marriage, moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the proper venue was the Province of Laguna, as this was Felicisimo’s place of residence prior to his death. The trial court ruled ...

b. Divina Gracia vs. Rovira,  72 SCRA 307 FACTS Feliciano Divinagracia died in Iloilo City on February 1,1964.  He  was  survived  by  his  wife,  Salud  Bretaña,  andtheir  four  daughters  named  Emilia,  Dolores,  Rosario  andJuanita. The case involves a dispute regarding the filiation of a child, Camilo Divinagracia, who sought to establish his claim to a share in the estate of a deceased parent. The probate court had previously closed the intestate proceedings, and Divinagracia filed a motion to reopen the case to present evidence of his filiation.  On June 8, 1971 or after the order closing the intestateproceeding  had  become  final,  Camilo  Divinagracia  filed  amotion to reopen it and to set aside the order of closure. Healleged  that  he  was  an  illegitimate  child  of  the  decedent;that he was born o...

Remedy of an heir entitled to residue but not given his share Vda. De Lopez vs. Lopez, 35 SCRA 81 FACTS On October 13, 1962 Saturnina M. Vda. de Lopez, judicial administratrix of the estate of the deceased (Sp. Proc No. 3740), filed with the lower court a project of partition adjudicating the whole to herself and her legitimate children with the deceased. In an order dated March 30, 1964 the lower court approved the project of partition and declared the intestate proceeding "terminated and closed for all legal purposes." Seventeen days thereafter, or on April 16, 1964, the minors Dahlia and Roy, both surnamed Lopez, 1 represented by their mother, Lolita B. Bachar, filed a motion to reopen the proceeding, together with a petition claiming that they were illegitimate children of, the deceased Emilio Lopez, born out of his extra-marital relations with Lolita B. Bachar, and asking that their rights as such be recognized and their shares in the estate given to them. The moti...

De Arranz vs. Galing,  G.R. No. 77047, 28 May 1988 FACTS The case involves a petition for review on certiorari regarding the probate proceedings of the last will and testament of Montserrat R-Infante. The petitioners, who were named legatees and devisees, claimed they were not given the required personal notice of the probate proceedings, which they argued constituted a reversible error. Whether the failure to provide personal notice to known heirs, legatees, and devisees was a jurisdictional requirement in the probate of a will. RULING Yes, the requirement for personal notice is indeed mandatory under the rules. Here, the Court emphasized that the probate court had knowledge of the petitioners' residences, as their names and addresses were included in the petition for probate. Hence absence of personal notice, despite the known addresses, was deemed a grave abuse of discretion. The Court annulled the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Regional Tri...