Indigents exempted from paying filing fees

Dear PAO,
I am writing for my mother whose date of birth was erroneously entered in their marriage contract. To correct the date, my mother has to file a Petition for Correction of Entry in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar. Is there a chance that my mother can be exempted from paying the fees for the filing of the petition?
Chloe

Dear Chloe,
The enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048 simplified the process of correcting erroneous entries in the civil registry, which are regarded as typographical or clerical errors. Civil registrars and consul generals were authorized by the said law to correct these erroneous entries. This is according to Section 1 thereof, which was amended by R.A. No. 10172, which reads as follows:

“SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname, the day and month in the date of birth or sex of a person where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry, which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.”

Assuming that the error in your parents’ marriage contract is clerical or typographical error, indeed a petition before the Local Civil Registrar may be filed to correct the same. However, a fee shall be collected before the petition is acted upon by the said officer. To be exempt from the payment of the said fee, it must be proven that the petitioner is indigent. This is according to Section 8 of the said law as amended by R.A. Act No. 10172,which provides:

“SEC. 8. Payment of Fees. The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be authorized to collect reasonable fees as a condition for accepting the petition. An indigent petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of the said fee.

xxx”

In the same vein, an indigent petitioner refers to a destitute, needy and poor individual who is certified as such by the social welfare and development office of the city/municipal government. (2.7, Rule 2, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001, Rules and Regulations Governing the Implementation of Republic Act No. 9048)

Based on the foregoing discussion, to be exempted from paying the required filing fee for the abovementioned petition, your mother has to prove that she is indigent. This can be done through a certification to be issued by the local social welfare and development office in your locality, certifying among other things that your mother is indigent.

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Facebook wins dismissal of $15-B users’ privacy suit

Facebook Inc. won dismissal of a $15-billion lawsuit accusing the company of secretly tracking the Internet activity of its users after they log off.

US District Judge Edward J. Davila in San Jose, California, on Friday agreed with Facebook’s argument that case should be dismissed because subscribers didn’t specify how they were harmed. The judge, who took more than three years to issue his ruling after hearing arguments in the case, said the users could refile most of their claims in a revised lawsuit.

Facebook users alleged in a 2012 complaint that while they may have agreed to the company’s installation of “cookie” files on their computers to track and transmit their Web browsing, they didn’t consent to such monitoring after logging out of the social network. The lawsuit consolidated similar complaints filed on behalf of US residents who subscribed to Facebook from May 2010 to September 2011 in 10 states, including California, Texas and Alabama.

Facebook, the world’s most popular social-networking service, has been scrutinized by regulators in the US and Europe over how it uses subscribers’ private information. The company has also been hit with multiple privacy lawsuits, from a complaint that it scans users’ private e-mail messages for targeted advertising to a claim that its use of facial- recognition technology has “amassed the world’s largest privately held database of consumer biometric data.”

In the San Jose case, the plaintiffs accused Facebook of violating the US Wiretap Act by monitoring their online activity while they weren’t logged on. They also accused Facebook of improperly profiting from their information.

‘Realistic’ harm

The judge said the users failed to “adequately connect” the value of the data collected by Facebook “to a realistic economic harm or loss.” Specifically, the plaintiffs failed to show “they personally lost the opportunity to sell their information or that the value of their information was somehow diminished after it was collected by Facebook,” Davila said.

Davila gave the plaintiffs until November 30 to revise their claims, including invasion of privacy and alleged violations of the Wiretap Act. That law provides for damages of as much as $100 a violation per day for each Facebook user, according to the complaint. Based on an estimate of 150 million affected users, the plaintiffs calculated potential damages of $15 billion.

A representative of Menlo Park, California-based Facebook didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail after regular business hours on  Friday seeking comment on the ruling. Three lawyers for the plaintiffs also didn’t respond to phone and e-mail messages.

Matthew Brown, a lawyer who represented Facebook at a 2012 hearing before Davila, told the judge that the users’ complaint suffers from an “utter lack of allegations of any injury to these particular named plaintiffs.”

Brown argued that the plaintiffs failed to identify what web sites they visited, what kind of data or information was collected or whether Facebook used it or disclosed it to anyone else.

source:  Business Mirror

Deceptive sales practice violates consumer law

Dear PAO,

When I was walking in a certain mall in Taguig City (Metro Manila), I chanced upon two individuals who introduced themselves as sales clerks from a particular company. They told me that I won some of their products. These agents brought me to their booth where they kept on congratulating me and also showing the products that I had won. They wrapped these products so that I could bring them home, but when I was about to take these prizes, one of the agents told me that I must first buy one of their products, which was too expensive. I found it impractical, so I told the agent that I was no longer interested in the prizes. Is this type of marketing strategy legal?
Melanio

Dear Melanio,
What you have narrated is a clear case of deceptive sales act or practice. You can file your complaint with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). This is in violation of Article 50 of Republic Act (RA) 7394, or the Consumer Act of the Philippines. The provision states, “A deceptive act or practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this Act whether it occurs before, during or after the transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed deceptive whenever the producer, manufacturer, supplier or seller, through concealment, false representation of fraudulent manipulation, induces a consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction of any consumer product or service. Without limiting the scope of the above paragraph, the act or practice of a seller or supplier is deceptive when it represents that:

a) a consumer product or service has the sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, ingredients, accessories, uses or benefits it does not have;

b) a consumer product or service is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model when in fact it is not;

c) a consumer product is new, original or unused, when in fact, it is in a deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed or second-hand state;

d) a consumer product or service is available to the consumer for a reason that is different from the fact;

e) a consumer product or service has been supplied in accordance with the previous representation when in fact it is not;

f) a consumer product or service can be supplied in a quantity greater than the supplier intends;

g) a service, or repair of a consumer product is needed when in fact it is not;

h) a specific price advantage of a consumer product exists when in fact it is not;

i) the sales act or practice involves or does not involve a warranty, a disclaimer of warranties, particular warranty terms or other rights, remedies or obligations if the indication is false; and

j)    the seller or supplier has a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation he does not have.”

Another provision of the law that was also violated was Article 52, which provides that “an unfair or unconscionable sales act or practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this chapter whether it occurs before, during or after the consumer transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed unfair or unconscionable whenever the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller, by taking advantage of the consumer’s physical or mental infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, lack of time or the general conditions of the environment or surroundings, induces the consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction grossly inimical to the interests of the consumer or gross one-sided in favor of the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller.”

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Adopted child, adoptive parents can inherit from each other

Dear PAO,
My friend was legally adopted by a wealthy man. The man died five years ago leaving all his properties to my friend. I am just wondering if the biological parents of my friend can inherit from him.
JM

Dear JM,
Adoption is the legal process by which a legitimate relationship is created between the adoptive parents and the adoptee to the effect that the adoptive parents are considered the legitimate parents of the adopted children. This is according to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, which provides:

“Section 17. Legitimacy. – The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate son/daughter of the adopter(s) for all intents and purposes and as such is entitled to all the rights and obligations provided by law to legitimate sons/daughters born to them without discrimination of any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled to love, guidance, and support in keeping with the means of the family.”

In the same vein, all legal ties between the biological parents and the adopted children are severed and vested in the adopters, unless one of the biological parents is the spouse of the adopter (Section 16, R.A. No. 8552).

Insofar as succession is concerned, the adoptive parents and the adopted child shall exclusively inherit from each other, as explicitly provided by Section 18 of the above-mentioned law, to wit:

“Section 18. Succession. — In legal and intestate succession, the adopter(s) and the adoptee shall have reciprocal rights of succession without distinction from legitimate filiation. However, if the adoptee and his/her biological parent(s) had left a will, the law on testamentary succession shall govern.”

It is clear therefore that the biological parents of an adopted child cannot inherit from the latter and vice-versa except through a will, which must comply with the law on testamentary succession.

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated. We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Children of Americans can still become Filipino citizens

Dear PAO,
My brother-in-law is 27 years old but he has lived here in the Philippines for more than ten years now. He has been telling us that he wants to be considered as a Filipino and we have already told him that, as far as we know, he cannot be considered one because both his parents are pure-blooded Americans. We can see how passionate he is about becoming a Filipino that is why we would like to seek your advice if there is a possibility for him to still become a Filipino. I hope you can respond soon. Thank you and more power.
Maye

Dear Maye,
Considering that your brother-in-law is now 27 years old, it is safe to say the 1987 Philippine Constitution is applicable to his concern. Under Section 1, Article IV, of the law, only the following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; (3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. Given that neither of his parents is a Filipino citizen, it may be said your brother-in-law may not be considered as a natural-born Filipino citizen.

Nevertheless, he may become a Filipino citizen through the process of naturalization. He may opt to file a petition for judicial naturalization before the Regional Trial Court (formerly the Court of First Instance) of the place or province where he has resided at least one year immediately preceding its filing (Section 8, Commonwealth Act 473). It is nevertheless vital for your brother-in-law to establish that he possesses the following qualifications: (1) he is at least 21 years of age; (2) he has resided in the Philippines for at least 10 years, which may be reduced to five years if he can establish that he is married to a Filipino woman; (3) he is of good moral character, believes in the Constitution and has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines; (4) he owns real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; (5) he is able to speak and write in Filipino or English and a principal Philippine dialect; and (6) if he has minor children of school age, he must have enroled them in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Department of Education where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum (Section 2 in relation to Section 3, Ibid).

It is also essential for your brother-in-law not to possess any of the disqualifications: (a) being opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; (b) defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas; (c) being a polygamist or believing in the practice of polygamy; (d) conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude; (e) suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases; and (f) during the period of his residence in the Philippines, he has not mingled socially with Filipinos, or has not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos (Section 4, Id.).

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Unless stipulated, interest on loan may not be collected from borrower

Dear PAO,
My friend friend’s borrowed P50,000 from me. We have an agreement with that person that she is going to pay the amount within 6 months with P5,000 interest each month. She executed a promissory note but failed to include the payment of the interest. The borrower stopped paying the interest after 6 months and kept on promising to pay the principal debt of P50,000. It has been two years now and the borrower has not paid her debt and interest. Can I still collect the debt and the accrued interest?
Belinda

Dear Belinda,
You may still collect the money that was borrowed from you by your friend’s friend two years ago. Considering that the borrower executed a promissory note, you may claim the principal debt of P50,000 from her within ten (10) years from the time of its execution pursuant to Article 1144 of the Civil Code, which provides that:

The following actions must be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues:

1) Upon a written contract;
2) Upon an obligation created by law;
3) Upon a judgment.
(Emphasis supplied)

As for the interest, which you stated to be P5,000 per month, the same may not be legally collected considering that the payment thereof was not stated in writing or embodied in the promissory note. This is pursuant to Article 1956 of the Civil Code, which provides that “no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing.”

In the collection of the amount of P50,000, you may file a small claim case with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court at the place of your residence or that of the borrower attaching the promissory note that she has executed (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases). Since two years have lapsed after you lent your money, however, we suggest that you send, first, a demand letter to the borrower to remind her of her existing debt or you may seek the assistance of barangay (village) officials for a possible amicable settlement.

We hope that we have answered your query. Our legal opinion may vary if other facts are stated or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

After last will found valid, heirs get testator’s wealth

Dear PAO,

Persida Acosta

PAO

When my aunt died, she left a last will and testament where she designated me and my other cousins as heirs to all her pieces of property. What shall we do to enforce the provisions of her will? Is there a possibility for her will to be invalidated?
Mr. Reyes

Dear Mr. Reyes,
The last will and testament of your aunt should be proved and allowed first in accordance with our Rules of Court before any of her pieces of property may be transferred to the heirs named therein (Article 838, Civil Code of the Philippines). Being one of the designated heirs, you may file a petition for probate before the Regional Trial Court where she resides at the time of her death. Your petition shall contain the following: 1) jurisdictional facts; 2) the names, ages and residences of the heirs, legatees and devisees of the testator or decedent; 3) the probable value and character of the pieces of property of the estate; 4) the name of the person for whom letters are prayed; and 5) if the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of the pieces of property (Rule 76, Section 2, Rules of Court). Once you have filed the petition, the court having jurisdiction shall fix a time and place for proving the will when all concerned may appear to contest the allowance thereof, and shall cause notice of such time and place to be published three (3) weeks successively, previous to the time appointed, in a newspaper of general circulation in the province (Rule 76, Section 3, Rules of Court). If the court is satisfied with your petition, it shall issue a certificate of allowance duly attested by the seal of the court that shall be attached to the will. The attested copies of the will devising real property and of the certificate of allowance thereof, shall be recorded in the register of deeds of the province in which the lands are located (Rule 76, Section 3, Rules of Court).

The last will and testament of your aunt will be disallowed, however, in any of the following instances: 1) if the formalities required by law have not been complied with; 2) if the testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution; 3) if it was executed through force or under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats; 4) if it was procured by undue and improper influence on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person; 5) if the signature of the testator was procured by fraud; and 6) if the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto (Article 839, Civil Code of the Philippines).

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts that you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net