Scribd
Upload
26 views2 pages

Municipal Council of San Pedro V Colegio de San Jose

This case discusses when a petition for escheat should be dismissed. The petitioners filed a petition for escheat claiming a hacienda by right of escheat. Two parties intervened alleging interests in the property. The court affirmed dismissing the petition for escheat as the petition did not state sufficient facts to show petitioners' entitlement to remedy and other parties had alleged interests in the property.

Uploaded by

Dea
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views2 pages

Municipal Council of San Pedro V Colegio de San Jose

This case discusses when a petition for escheat should be dismissed. The petitioners filed a petition for escheat claiming a hacienda by right of escheat. Two parties intervened alleging interests in the property. The court affirmed dismissing the petition for escheat as the petition did not state sufficient facts to show petitioners' entitlement to remedy and other parties had alleged interests in the property.

Uploaded by

Dea
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II – ATTY. RAMON S.

ESGUERRA

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN PEDRO LAGUNA vs COLEGIO DE AUTHOR: Lim, Acdea R.


SAN JOSE INC. NOTES:
[G.R. No. 45460; February 25, 1938]
TOPIC: When Proceeding will not prosper
PONENTE: Imperial, J.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where petition for escheat does not state facts which entitle petitioner to the remedy prayed for or other
grounds for dismissal under the rules
FACTS:
 This case was commenced in the said by a petition filed by the petitioners in behalf of the municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, wherein they
claim the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan by the right of escheat.
 The Colegio de San Jose, Inc., appeared specially and assailed the petition upon the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and decide
the case and that the petition does not allege sufficient facts to entitle the applicants to the remedy prayed for; and asked that the petition be finally
dismissed.
 Carlos Young intervened and filed a motion asking for the dismissal or the petition upon the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the same
was filed, is not applicable because it was not yet in force when the original owner of the hacienda died, which was in April, 1596, and that the petition was
irregularly docketed as the applicants had paid at the docket fees which the clerk of court should collect.
 Subsequently the attorneys for both parties filed another motion of minor importance, almost all of which contains the arguments advanced in support of
their contentions. On October 29, 1936, the court overruled the objection to the appearance and intervention in the case by the Colegio de San Jose and
Carlos Young, entering the order which is one of those appealed from. And on the 30th of the same moth the court entered the resolution, also appealed
from, dismissing the petition for escheat, with the costs to the petitioners.
ISSUE(S):
WON petition for escheat should be dismissed (YES)
HELD:
For the foregoing reasons, the appealed order and resolution are affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the petitioners and appellants. So ordered.
RATIO:
 Escheat, under sections 750 and 751, is a proceeding whereby the real and personal property of a deceased person become the property of the State upon
his death without leaving any will or legal heirs
 In a special proceeding for escheat under section 750 and 751 the petitioner is not the sole and exclusive interested party. Any person alleging to have a
direct right or interest in the property sought to be escheated is likewise and interest and necessary party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat.
 In the present case the Colegio de San Jose, Inc., and Carlos Young appeared alleging to have a material interest in the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan;
and the former because it claims to be the exclusive owner of the hacienda, and the latter because he claim to be the lessee thereof under a contract legality
entered with the former.
 In view of these allegations it is erroneous to hold that the said parties are without right either to appear in case or to substantiate their respective alleged
right.
 The final dismissal of the petition for escheat decreed by the court is assigned by the petitioners is the contention that the demurrer, to which amount the
motions for dismissal, is not a pleading authorized by law in this kind of proceeding and because, in any event, the court should have given them an
opportunity to amend the petition.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II – ATTY. RAMON S. ESGUERRA

 Chapter XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, relative to the escheat of properties, does not in fact authorize the filing of a demurrer to the petition
presented for that purpose, and section 91 and 99 permitting the interposition of demurrers to the complaint and answer, respectively, are not applicable to
special proceedings. But is no reason of a procedure nature which prevents the filing of a motion to dismiss based upon any of the grounds provided by
law for a demurrer to a complaint.
 In such case, the motion to dismiss pays the role of a demurrer and the court should resolve the legal question raised therein. When, for instance, a petition
for escheat does not state facts which entitle the petitioner to the remedy prayed from and even admitting them hypothetically it is clear that there are nor
grounds for the court to proceed to the inquisition provided by law, we see no reason to disallow an interest party from filing a motion to dismiss the
petition which is untenable from all standpoints. And when the motion to dismiss is entertained upon this ground, the petition may be dismissed
unconditionally and the petitioner is not entitled, as in the case of a demurrer, to be afforded an opportunity to amend his petition
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

You might also like