RULES OF SUMMARY PROCEDURE:

     If the extension for the filing of pleadings cannot be allowed, it is illogical and incongruous to admit a pleading that is already filed late. to admit a late answer is to put a premium on dilatory measures, the very mischief that the rules seek to redress.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

GUARDIANSHIP:

     The distribution of the residue of the estate of the deceased incompetent is a function pertaining properly, not to the guardianship proceedings, but to another proceeding in which the heirs are at liberty to initiate.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

APPEALS:

     THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE IS UNDOUBTEDLY A QUESTION OF FACT, AND IT IS WELL ENTRENCHED IN JURISPRUDENCE THAT FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT COMMAND GREAT WEIGHT AND RESPECT UNLESS PATENT INCONSISTENCIES ARE IGNORED OR WHERE THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED ARE CLEARLY UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. 

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

CHANGE OF NAME:

     A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and meritorious grounds including (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

GENERAL PRINCIPLES:

     A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. The Supreme Court did not desist from resolving an issue that a supervening event meanwhile rendered moot and academic if any of the following recognized exceptions obtained, namely: (1) there was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest; (3) the constitutional issue raised required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; and (4) the case was capable of repetition, yet evading review.

https://www.facebook.com/home.php

APPEALS IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS:

     The 48-hour appeal period in habeas corpus demonstrates the adequacy of such remedy in that no unnecessary time will be wasted before the decision will be re-evaluated.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

CLERICAL ERROR:

    No intent or the part of the lawmakers to remove the authority of the trial courts to make judicial corrections of entries in the civil registry. It can thus be concluded that the local civil registrar has primary, not exclusive, jurisdiction over such petitions for correction of clerical errors and change of first name or nickname, with R.A. No. 9048 prescribing the procedure that the petitioner and local civil registrar should follow. Since R.A. No. 9048 refers specifically to the administrative summary proceeding before the local civil registrar it would be inappropriate to apply the same procedure to petitions for the correction of entries in the civil registry before the courts.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

ARREST IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO:

         For this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur:

      "(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and,

          (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer."

        A common example of an arrest in flagrante delicto is one made after conducting a buy-bust operation.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

RECANTATION OF TESTIMONY:

     The recantation of private complainants are insufficient to warrant the reversal of accused’s conviction. Recantations are frowned upon by the courts. A recantation of a testimony is exceedingly unreliable, for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be itself repudiated. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary consideration. It is also a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimony solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the witness who gave it later changed his mind for one reason or another. This will make a mockery of solemn trials and put the investigation of crimes at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

DEAF-MUTE WITNESS:

     A deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.  Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they (1) can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and (3) can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter. (People vs. Hayag, 101 SCRA 67). Thus, in People vs. De Leon, 50 Phil. 539 and People vs. Sasota, 52 Phil. 281, the accused was convicted on the basis of the testimony of a deaf-mute.  Although in People vs. Bustos, 51 Phil 389, the testimony of a deaf-mute was rejected, this was because there were times during his testimony that the interpreter could not make out what the witness meant by the signs she used.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION:

     Custodial interrogation means any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

HEARSAY:

     Section 36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which they have personal knowledge; otherwise, their testimonies would be inadmissible for being hearsay Since the witnesses merely attested to the voluntariness and due execution of the respective extrajudicial confessions of the accused, insofar as the substance of those confessions is concerned, the testimonies of the police witnesses are mere hearsay.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

HIERARCHY OF EVIDENTIARY VALUES:

     In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, then by preponderance of evidence, and lastly by substantial evidence, in that order.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

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. x x x x  If the mortgagor 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.

                         

          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.  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 present 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.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS:

     All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the estate of deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or appointment of administrators or executors regardless of the nature or the aggregate value of the property shall be under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Shari’a District Courts.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl