Scribd
Upload
228 views2 pages

Republic VS Ca

This case involves a petition filed by Amada Solano seeking to annul a previous judgment that escheated two parcels of land to the city of Pasay. Solano claims she was the rightful owner of the lands as they had been donated to her by deeds of donation from their previous owner, Elizabeth Hankins. However, the deeds were lost. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) as an alleged donee, Solano had legal standing to challenge the escheatment as an interested party; but (2) her challenge, filed over 7 years after the escheat judgment, was barred by the 5-year statute of limitations to assert claims over escheated property under Rule 91 of the

Uploaded by

Crisvon L. Gazo
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
228 views2 pages

Republic VS Ca

This case involves a petition filed by Amada Solano seeking to annul a previous judgment that escheated two parcels of land to the city of Pasay. Solano claims she was the rightful owner of the lands as they had been donated to her by deeds of donation from their previous owner, Elizabeth Hankins. However, the deeds were lost. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) as an alleged donee, Solano had legal standing to challenge the escheatment as an interested party; but (2) her challenge, filed over 7 years after the escheat judgment, was barred by the 5-year statute of limitations to assert claims over escheated property under Rule 91 of the

Uploaded by

Crisvon L. Gazo
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

REPUBLIC VS CA

GR. 143483 Jan.31, 2002

FACTS :

Private respondent Amada Solano, for more than 3 decades, served as the all-around personal domestic helper of
the late Elizabeth Hankins, a widow and a French national. During Ms. Hankins' lifetime and most especially during
the waning years of her life, respondent Solano was her faithful girl Friday and a constant companion since no close
relative was available to tend to her needs. Because of Solano’s faithfulness and dedication, Ms. Hankins executed in
her favor 2 deeds of donation involving 2 parcels of land (TCT Nos. 7807 and 7808) Private respondent alleged that
she misplaced the deeds of donation and were nowhere to be found.

Republic filed a petition for the escheat of the estate of Hankins before the RTC of Pasay City. During the
proceedings, a motion for intervention was filed by Romeo Solano, spouse of private respondent, and one Gaudencio
Regosa. But on June 24, 1987 the motion was denied by the trial court for the reason that "they miserably failed to
show valid claim or right to the properties in question.” Since it was established that there were no known heirs and
persons entitled to the properties of decedent Hankins, the lower court escheated the estate in favor of petitioner
Republic of the Philippines.

The Registry of Deeds of Pasay City cancelled TCT Nos. 7807 and 7808 and issued new ones in the name of Pasay
City, by virtue of the decision of the trial court. In the meantime, private respondent claimed that she accidentally
found the deeds of donation she had been looking for a long time.  In view of this development, respondent Solano
filed on January 28, 1997 a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals.  Contentions:  The
deceased Elizabeth Hankins having donated the subject properties to the petitioner, did not and could not form part of
her estate when she died on 1985. Consequently, they could not validly be escheated to the Pasay City Government;
Even assuming arguendo that the properties could be subject of escheat proceedings, the decision is still legally
infirm for escheating the properties to an entity, the Pasay City Government, which is not authorized by law to be the
recipient thereof. The property should have been escheated in favor of the Republic of the Philippines under Rule 91,
Section 1 of the New Rules of Court.

The Office of the Solicitor General, on March 1997, representing public respondents RTC and the Register of Deeds
(petitioner) filed an answer setting forth their affirmative defenses, to wit:

(a) lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action; and,

(b) the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations.

The Court of Appeals, on November 1998, issued the assailed Resolution upholding the theory of respondent
Solano.

CA’s Ruling: Petitioner (Solano) invokes lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter on the part of respondent RTC
to entertain the escheat proceedings because the parcels of land have been earlier donated to herein petitioner prior
to the death of said Hankins; and therefore, respondent court could not have ordered the escheat of said properties in
favor of the Republic of the Philippines x x x

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure specifically laid down the grounds of annulment filed before this Court, to wit:
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and this jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations of the complaint. It is axiomatic that the averments of the complaint determine the
nature of the action and consequently the jurisdiction of the courts.

The issues presented in the petition can only be resolved only after a full blown trial. It is for the same reason that
respondent’s espousal of the statute of limitations against herein petition for annulment cannot prosper at this stage
of the proceedings.
Sec 4, Rule 91 of the Rules of Court which provides for the period for filing claim in escheat proceeding (5 years) is
not applicable. Petitioner (Solano) is not claiming anything from the estate of the deceased at the time of her death;
rather she is claiming that the subject parcels of land should not have been included as part of the estate of the said
decedent as she is the owner thereof by virtue of the deeds of donation in her favor.

Petitioner is claiming ownership of the properties in question and the consequent reconveyance thereof in her favor
which cause of action prescribes ten (10) years after the issuance of title in favor of respondent Pasay City on August
7, 1990. Therefore, the petition was seasonably filed on February 3, 1997.

The CA likewise denied the motion for reconsideration filed by public respondents. Petitioner contends that the
lower court had jurisdiction when it escheated the properties in question in favor of the city government and the filing
of a petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of subsequent discovery of the deeds of donation did not divest
the lower court of its jurisdiction on the matter.

Petitioner also insists that notwithstanding the execution of the deeds of donation in favor of private respondent, the
5-year statute of limitations within which to file claims before the court as set forth in Rule 91 of the Revised Rules of
Court has set in.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not private respondent Solano, allegedly a donee, have the personality to be a claimant within
the purview of Sec. 4, Rule 91 of the Rules of Court.

(2) Whether or not the petition for annulment of judgment filed by private respondent is barred by prescription.

HELD:

In the case of Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna v. Colegio de San Jose, Inc. “In a special proceeding for
escheat 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 an interested party and may appear and oppose the
petition for escheat.”

Escheat is a proceeding, unlike that of succession or assignment, whereby the state, by virtue of its sovereignty,
steps in and claims the real or personal property of a person who dies intestate leaving no heir. In the absence of a
lawful owner, a property is claimed by the state to forestall an open "invitation to self-service by the first comers.“

Since escheat is one of the incidents of sovereignty, the state may, and usually does, prescribe the conditions and
limits the time within which a claim to such property may be made. The procedure by which the escheated property
may be recovered is generally prescribed by statue, and a time limit is imposed within which such action must be
brought.  In this jurisdiction, a claimant to an escheated property must file his claim "within five (5) years from the
date of such judgment, such person shall have possession of and title to the same, or if sold, the municipality or city
shall be accountable to him for the proceeds, after deducting the estate; but a claim not made shall be barred
forever.“

The 5-year period is not a device capriciously conjured by the state to defraud any claimant; on the contrary, it is
decidedly prescribed to encourage would-be claimants to be punctilious in asserting their claims, otherwise they may
lose them forever in a final judgment.

In the instant petition, the escheat judgment was handed down by the lower court as early as June 1989 but it was
only on January 1997, more or less seven (7) years after, when private respondent decided to contest the escheat
judgment in the guise of a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals.

Obviously, private respondent's belated assertion of her right over the escheated properties militates against
recovery. In the mind of this Court the subject properties were owned by the decedent during the time that the
escheat proceedings were being conducted and the lower court was not divested of its jurisdiction to escheat them in
favor of Pasay City notwithstanding an allegation that they had been previously donated.

The certificates of title covering the subject properties were in the name of the decedent indicating that no transfer of
ownership involving the disputed properties was ever made by the deceased during her lifetime.

In the absence therefore of any clear and convincing proof showing that the subject lands had been conveyed by
Hankins to Solano, the same still remained part of the estate of the decedent and the lower court was right not to
assume otherwise.  Wherefore, the petition is granted, the CA’s resolutions are SET ASIDE and the RTC’s decision
is REINSTATED

You might also like