ADVANCE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE:

       although it is within the discretion of the COURT whether or not to permit the advance distribution of the estate, its exercise of such discretion should be qualified by the following: [1] only part of the estate that is not affected by any pending controversy or appeal may be the subject of advance distribution (Section 2, Rule 109); and [2] the distributees must post a bond, fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of outstanding obligations of the estate (second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 90). (Peña vs. LCN Construction Corp., [2008]).

https://www.facebook.com/Villasis-Law-Center-784695934976279/

WRIT OF AMPARO:

      THE RIGHTS THAT FALL WITHIN THE PROTECTIVE MANTLE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE RULES THEREON ARE THE FOLLOWING: (1) RIGHT TO LIFE; (2) RIGHT TO LIBERTY; AND (3) RIGHT TO SECURITY. The Supreme Court held that the restriction on petitioner’s right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that his right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it amounted to a serious violation of his right to life, liberty and security, for which there exists no readily available legal recourse or remedy. (REVEREND FATHER ROBERT P. REYES VS. COURT OF APPEALS [2009]).

https://www.facebook.com/Villasis-Law-Center-784695934976279/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

MULTIPLE APPEALS:

   THE RATIONALE BEHIND ALLOWING MORE THAN ONE APPEAL IN THE SAME CASE IS TO ENABLE THE REST OF THE CASE TO PROCEED IN THE EVENT THAT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ISSUE IS RESOLVED BY THE COURT AND HELD TO BE FINAL. In this multi-appeal mode, the probate court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter of the appeal but retains jurisdiction over the special proceeding from which the appeal was taken for purposes of further remedies the parties may avail of. (ATTY. BRIONES VS. HENSON-CRUZ [2008]).

http://villasislawcenter.com/

EQUITY OF REDEMPTION VS. RIGHT OF REDEMPTION:

    In relation to mortgage, the right of redemption exists in extra-judicial foreclosure; while equity of redemption exists only in judicial foreclosure. In extrajudicial foreclosure, the mortgagor may exercise his right of redemption within 1 year from the registration of the sale in the Office of the Registry of Deeds; while in judicial foreclosure, the mortgagor may exercise his equity of redemption during the period of not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days from entry of judgment of foreclosure or even after the foreclosure sale but before the judicial confirmation of the sale. There is no right of redemption in judicial foreclosure of mortgage, except only if the mortgagee is the Philippine National Bank or any banking institution. Thus, in judicial foreclosure of mortgage where the mortgagee is the Philippine National Bank or any banking institution, there exist both equity of redemption and right of redemption. (Huerta Alba Resort v. CA, GR [2000]).

http://villasislawcenter.com/

QUESTIONS OF LAW VS. QUESTION OF FACT:

   The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is settled.  A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts.  A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.  Though this delineation seems simple, determining the true nature and extent of the distinction is sometimes problematic. For example, it is incorrect to presume that all cases where the facts are not in dispute automatically involve purely questions of law. [Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., G.R. No. 140946, September 13, 2004] (CENTURY SAVINGS BANK VS. SPOUSES SAMONTE [2010]).

https://www.facebook.com/Villasis-Law-Center-784695934976279/