In her answer, herein petitioner Natcher averred

PATRICIA NATCHER V. HON. COURT that she was legally married to Graciano on 20
OF APPEALS March 1980 and thus, under the law, she was
G.R. No. 133000, October 02, 2001, SECOND likewise considered a compulsory heir of the
DIVISION, (BUENA, J.) latter. RTC held that the subject deed of sale is
prohibited by law because they are spouses. The
Spouses Graciano del Rosario and Graciana CA reversed because the probate court that has
Esguerra were registered owners of a parcel of exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal
land with an area of 9,322 square meters located in distribution of the estate. Hence, this petition.
Manila. Upon the death of Graciana in 1951,
Graciano, together with his six children, namely: ISSUE:
Bayani, Ricardo, Rafael, Leticia, Emiliana and
Nieves, entered into an extrajudicial settlement of May a Regional Trial Court, acting as a court of
Graciana's estate adjudicating and dividing among general jurisdiction in an action for reconveyance
themselves the real property. Graciano received and annulment of title with damages, adjudicate
8/14 share while each of the six children received matters relating to the settlement of the estate of a
1/14 share of the said property. Further, said heirs deceased person particularly in questions as to
executed and forged an "Agreement of advancement of property made by the decedent to
Consolidation-Subdivision of Real Property with any of the heirs?
Waiver of Rights" where they subdivided among
HELD: NO
themselves the parcel of land into several lots.
Graciano then donated to his children, share and We concur with the Court of Appeals and find no
share alike, a portion of his interest in the land merit in the instant petition. Section 3, Rule 1 of
amounting to 4,849.38 square meters leaving only the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines civil
447.60 square meters registered under Graciano's action and special proceedings, in this wise:
name. other lots were subdivided. Eventually, "X X X a) A civil action is one by which a party
Graciano sold the first lot to a third person but sues another for the enforcement or protection of
retained ownership over the second lot. a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
"A civil action may either be ordinary or special.
On 20 March 1980, Graciano married herein Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil
petitioner Patricia Natcher. During their marriage, actions, subject to specific rules prescribed for a
Graciano sold the land covered by TCT No. special civil action. "X X X "c) A special
107443 to his wife. When Graciano died, he left proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
his second wife Patricia and his six children by his establish a status, a right or a particular fact."
first marriage, as heirs. As could be gleaned from the foregoing, there lies
a marked distinction between an action and a
Private respondents filed a complaint and alleged special proceeding. An action is a formal demand
that upon Graciano's death, petitioner Natcher, of one's right in a court of justice in the manner
through the employment of fraud, prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the
misrepresentation and forgery, acquired the lot by method of applying legal remedies according to
making it appear that Graciano executed a Deed definite established rules. The term "special
of Sale in favor of Patricia Natcher. Similarly, proceeding" may be defined as an application or
herein private respondents alleged in said proceeding to establish the status or right of a
complaint that as a consequence of such party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special
fraudulent sale, their legitimes have been impaired. proceedings, no formal pleadings are required
unless the statute expressly so provides. In special the same provision[11] contemplates a probate
proceedings, the remedy is granted generally upon court when it speaks of the "court having
an application or motion." jurisdiction of the estate proceedings". Corollarily,
the Regional Trial Court in the instant case, acting
Citing American Jurisprudence, a noted authority in its general jurisdiction, is devoid of authority to
in Remedial Law expounds further: render an adjudication and resolve the issue of
"It may accordingly be stated generally that advancement of the real property in favor of
actions include those proceedings which are herein petitioner Natcher, inasmuch as Civil Case
instituted and prosecuted according to the No. 71075 for reconveyance and annulment of
ordinary rules and provisions relating to actions at title with damages is not, to our mind, the proper
law or suits in equity, and that special proceedings vehicle to thresh out said question. Moreover,
include those proceedings which are not ordinary under the present circumstances, the RTC of
in this sense, but is instituted and prosecuted Manila, Branch 55 was not properly constituted as
according to some special mode as in the case of a probate court so as to validly pass upon the
proceedings commenced without summons and question of advancement made by the decedent
prosecuted without regular pleadings, which are Graciano Del Rosario to his wife, herein
characteristics of ordinary actions. X X X A petitioner Natcher.
special proceeding must therefore be in the nature
of a distinct and independent proceeding for
particular relief, such as may be instituted RUFINA LUY LIM v. CA, AUTO TRUCK
independently of a pending action, by petition or TBA CORP, SPEED DISTRIBUTING INC.,
motion upon notice."[10] ACTIVE DISTRIBUTORS, ALLIANCE
Applying these principles, an action for MARKETING CORP., AND ACTION CO.
reconveyance and annulment of title with damages INC.
is a civil action, whereas matters relating to G.R. No. 124715, January 24, 2000, SECOND
settlement of the estate of a deceased person such DIVISION (Buena, J.)
as advancement of property made by the
decedent, partake of the nature of a special Key Doctrine: “Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil
proceeding, which concomitantly requires the actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate,
application of specific rules as provided for in the including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases,
Rules of Court. Clearly, matters which involve where the value of the personal property, estate or amount of
settlement and distribution of the estate of the the demand does not exceed P100,000 or, in Metro
decedent fall within the exclusive province of the Manila where such personal property, estate or amount of
probate court in the exercise of its limited the demand does not exceed P200,000.”(see footnote 2)
jurisdiction.
Rufina Lim is the surviving spouse of the
Thus, under Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Pastor Lim who died intestate and whose estate is
Court, questions as to advancement made or the subject of probate proceedings. Rufina, duly
alleged to have been made by the deceased to any represented by her nephew George Luy, filed a
heir may be heard and determined by the court joint petition for the administration of the estate
having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; of Pastor . Private respondent corporations,
and the final order of the court thereon shall be whose properties were included in the inventory
binding on the person raising the questions and of the estate of Pastor filed a motion for the lifting
on the heir. While it may be true that the Rules of lis pendens and motion for exclusion of certain
used the word "may", it is nevertheless clear that properties from the estate of the decedent which
was granted by the RTC as the probate court. The provisions of Republic Act 7691,
Subsequently, Rufina Luy Lim filed a verified which introduced amendments to Batas Pambansa
amended petition stating that the respondents Blg. 129, are pertinent:
engaged in business with the public as
corporations, all their capital, assets and equity "Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa
were however, personally owned by the late Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary
Pastor, that the alleged stockholders and officers Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby
appearing in the respective articles of amended to read as follows:
incorporation of the above business entities were Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.
mere dummies of Pastor Y. Lim, and they were Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
listed therein only for purposes of registration, exclusive jurisdiction:
and that the properties are all conjugal in nature. (4) In all matters of probate, both
Hence, the RTC set aside its previous order and testate and intestate, where the gross value
the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City was of the estate exceeds One Hundred
directed to reinstate the annotation of lis pendens. Thousand Pesos (P100,000) or, in probate
Rufina was appointed as special administrators matters in Metro Manila, where such gross
with two others. value exceeds Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P200,000);
The probate court denied anew private Section 3. Section 33 of the same law is
respondents’ motion for exclusion and later issued hereby amended to read as follows: Section
an order directing the parties and banks concerned 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial
within (5) five days to submit their records in the Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
name of Pastor and the corporations to show all Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil
the transactions made. Private respondent filed a Cases.-Metropolitan Trial Courts,
special civil action for certiorari questioning the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
orders of the RTC, sitting as a probate court Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
which was granted by the CA. 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over
civil actions and probate proceedings,
ISSUES: testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where
1. What is the jurisdiction of the courts over
the value of the personal property, estate or
settlement of estate?
amount of the demand does not exceed
2. May a corporation, in its universality, be
One Hundred Thousand Pesos(P100,000)
the proper subject of and be included in
or, in Metro Manila where such personal
the inventory of the estate of a deceased
property, estate or amount of the demand
person?1
does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand
HELD: Pesos (P200,000),2 exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
1. Before we delve into the merits of the litigation expenses and costs, the amount of
case, a review of the rules on jurisdiction over which must be specifically alleged,
probate proceedings is indeed in order. Provided, that interest, damages of

2 According to J. De Leon’s book (p.10), R.A. 7691

1 This is the main issue in the case but not related to amended B.P. Blg. 129 which increased the gross value
the topic – Jurisdiction Over Settlement of Estate - from 100,000 to 300, 000 or from 200,000 to 400,000 if
under the book. within Metro Manila.
 whatever kind, attorney’s, litigation bare assertions as to the title of the deceased
expenses and costs shall be included in the Pastor Y. Lim over the properties.
determination of the filing fees, Provided
further, that where there are several claims Inasmuch as the real properties included
or causes of actions between the same or in the inventory of the estate of the late Pastor Y.
different parties, embodied in the same Lim are in the possession of and are registered in
complaint, the amount of the demand shall the name of private respondent corporations,
be the totality of the claims in all the causes which under the law possess a personality separate
of action, irrespective of whether the causes and distinct from their stockholders, and in the
of action arose out of the same or different absence of any cogency to shred the veil of
transactions." corporate fiction, the presumption of
conclusiveness of said titles in favor of private
Simply put, the determination of respondents should stand undisturbed. It is
which court exercises jurisdiction over matters settled that a corporation is clothed with
of probate depends upon the gross value of personality separate and distinct from that of the
the estate of the decedent. persons composing it. It may not generally be held
liable for that of the persons composing it. It may
2. NO. This Court, in PASTOR, JR. vs. not be held liable for the personal indebtedness of
COURT OF APPEALS, held: "As a rule, the its stockholders or those of the entities connected
question of ownership is an extraneous matter with it. Rudimentary is the rule that a corporation
which the probate court cannot resolve with is invested by law with a personality distinct and
finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining separate from its stockholders or members. In the
whether a certain property should or should not same vein, a corporation by legal fiction and
be included in the inventory of estate properties, convenience is an entity shielded by a protective
the Probate Court may pass upon the title thereto, mantle and imbued by law with a character alien
but such determination is provisional, not to the persons comprising it.
conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a
separate action to resolve title."

Where the parcels of land are registered in HEIRS OF TEOFILO GABATAN, namely:
the name of private respondent corporations, the LOLITA GABATAN, POMPEYO
jurisprudence pronounced in BOLISAY vs., GABATAN, PEREGRINO GABATAN,
ALCID is of great essence and finds applicability, REYNALDO GABATAN, NILA GABATAN
thus: "It does not matter that respondent has and JESUS JABINIS, RIORITA GABATAN
evidence purporting to support her claim of TUMALA and FREIRA GABATAN vs.
ownership, for, on the other hand, petitioners HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
have a Torrens title in their favor, which under the LOURDES EVERO PACANA
law is endowed with incontestability until after it G.R. No. 150206, FIRST DIVISION, 13
has been set aside in the manner indicated in the March 2009 (Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
law itself, which, of course, does not include,
KEY DOCTRINE: Jurisprudence dictates that the
bringing up the matter as a mere incident in
determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must
special proceedings for the settlement of the estate
be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not
of deceased persons." A perusal of the records
in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession
would reveal that no strong compelling evidence
of property. x x x in the case of Portugal v. Portugal-
was ever presented by petitioner to bolster her
Beltran, the only property of the intestate estate is the
Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it, under the the fruits of the improvements thereon, to the
circumstances of the case, to a special proceeding which could exclusion of the whole world including
be long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status of respondent. Petitioners clarified that Jesus Jabinis
petitioners as heirs is not only impractical. and Catalino Acantilado have no interest in the
subject land; the former is merely the husband of
Subject of the present controversy is Teofilo’s daughter while the latter is just a
a 1.1062 hectare parcel of land, identified as Lot caretaker. Petitioners added that a similar case
3095 C-5 and situated at Calinugan, Balulang, was previously filed by respondent against
Cagayan de Oro City. This lot was declared for Teofilo’s wife but the case was dismissed on May
taxation in the name of Juan Gabatan. In the 3, 1983 for lack of interest. Finally, petitioners
complaint before the RTC, respondent Lourdes contended that the complaint lacks or states no
Evero Pacana alleged that she is the sole owner of cause of action or, if there was any, the same has
Lot 3095 C-5, having inherited the same from her long prescribed and/or has been barred by laches.
deceased mother, Hermogena Gabatan Evero
(Hermogena). Respondent further claimed that RTC rendered a decision ordering petitioners to
her mother, Hermogena, is the only child of Juan reconvey the OCT in favour of respondent. On
Gabatan and his wife, Laureana Clarito. She appeal, CA rendered the herein assailed decision
further alleged that upon the death of Juan affirming the RTC.
Gabatan, the subject lot was entrusted to his
brother, Teofilo Gabatan and Teofilo’s wife, Rita ISSUE. Did the lower court erred in failing to
Gabatan, for administration. It was also claimed appreciate by preponderance of evidence in favor
that prior to her death, Hermogena demanded for of the defendants-appellants (petitioners) claim
the return of the land to no avail. After that they and the heirs of Justa and Macaria both
Hermogena’s death, respondent Lourdes also did surnamed Gabatan are the sole and surviving heirs
the same but the petitioners refused to heed the of Juan Gabatan and, therefore, entitled to inherit
numerous demands to surrender the subject the land subject matter hereof.
property. According to respondent, when Teofilo
NOTE: various errors were assigned by the
and his wife died, petitioners Jesus Jabinis and
petitioners, but none was specifically related to
Catalino Acantilado took possession of the
special proceedings. But the Court passed upon
disputed land despite respondent’s demands for
certain preliminary matters such as the established
them to vacate the same.
exceptions to the rule on conclusiveness of the
In their Answer, petitioners denied that findings of fact by the lower courts and that court
respondent’s mother, Hermogena, was the rules recognize the broad discretionary power of
daughter of Juan Gabatan and Laureana Clarito an appellate court to waive the lack of proper
nor is the respondent the rightful heir of Juan assignment of errors and to consider errors not
Gabatan. Petitioners maintained that Juan assigned. Thus, the Court is clothed with ample
Gabatan died single in 1934 and without any issue authority to review rulings even if they are not
and that Juan was survived by one brother and assigned as errors in the appeal in certain
two sisters, namely: Teofilo (petitioners instances.
predecessor-in-interest), Macaria and Justa. These
HELD.
siblings and/or their heirs, inherited the subject
land from Juan Gabatan and have been in actual, The respondent’s main cause of action in the
physical, open, public, adverse, continuous and court a quo is the recovery of ownership and
uninterrupted possession thereof in the concept of possession of property. It is undisputed that the
owners for more than fifty (50) years and enjoyed subject property was owned by the deceased Juan
Gabatan, during his lifetime. Before us are two only property of the intestate estate of Portugal is
contending parties, both insisting to be the legal the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it,
heir(s) of the decedent. under the circumstances of the case, to a
special proceeding which could be long,
Jurisprudence dictates that the determination hence, not expeditious, just to establish the
of who are the legal heirs of the deceased status of petitioners as heirs is not only
must be made in the proper special impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with
proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary the costs and expenses of an administration
suit for recovery of ownership and possession proceeding. And it is superfluous in light of
of property. This must take precedence over the the fact that the parties to the civil case
action for recovery of possession and subject of the present case, could and had
ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that already in fact presented evidence before the
the trial court cannot make a declaration of trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the
heirship in the civil action for the reason that such case upon the issues it defined during pre-
a declaration can only be made in a special trial.
proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 In fine, under the circumstances of the present
Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined case, there being no compelling reason to still
as one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or subject Portugal’s estate to administration
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a proceedings since a determination of petitioners
wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case
a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular filed by petitioners, the trial court should proceed
fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties
of heirship can be made only in a special during the trial and render a decision thereon
proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are upon the issues it defined during pre-trial, x x x.
seeking the establishment of a status or right.
Similarly, in the present case, there appears to be
This doctrine was reiterated in Solivio v. Court of only one parcel of land being claimed by the
Appeals. In the more recent case of Milagros contending parties as their inheritance from Juan
Joaquino v. Lourdes Reyes, the Court reiterated its Gabatan. It would be more practical to dispense
ruling that matters relating to the rights of filiation with a separate special proceeding for the
and heirship must be ventilated in the proper determination of the status of respondent as the
probate court in a special proceeding instituted sole heir of Juan Gabatan, especially in light of the
precisely for the purpose of determining such fact that the parties to Civil Case No. 89-092, had
rights. Citing the case of Agapay v. Palang, this voluntarily submitted the issue to the RTC and
Court held that the status of an illegitimate child already presented their evidence regarding the
who claimed to be an heir to a decedent’s estate issue of heirship in these proceeding. Also the
could not be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action RTC assumed jurisdiction over the same and
which, as in this case, was for the recovery of consequently rendered judgment thereon.
property.
x x x This Court finds that respondent dismally
However, we are not unmindful of our decision failed to substantiate, with convincing, credible
in Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, where the Court and independently verifiable proof, her assertion
relaxed its rule and allowed the trial court in a that she is the sole heir of Juan Gabatan and thus,
proceeding for annulment of title to determine the entitled to the property under litigation. Petition
status of the party therein as heirs, to wit: It granted.
appearing, however, that in the present case the
 Unregistered Land; Extrajudicial Settlement and
HEIRS OF ROMANA INGJUG-TIRO: Confirmation of Sale alleging that they only
BEDESA, PEDRO, RITA ALL SURNAMED discovered that the land was sold to the
TIRO, AND BARBARA TIRO respondents in 1990. Petitioners also prayed that
(DECEASED), ET AL vs. SPOUSES LEON the Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land as well as
V. CASALS AND LILIA C. CASALS, the Extrajudicial Settlement and Confirmation of
SPOUSES CARLOS L. CLIMACO AND Sale be nullified to the extent of petitioners' shares
LYDIA R. CLIMACO, SPOUSES JOSE L. in the property.
CLIMACO, JR. AND BLANQUITA C. The trial court dismissed the action on
CLIMACO, AND CONSUELO L. the ground of prescription and laches based on
CLIMACO, RESPONDENTS. the fact that the Co-ownership of the lot in
G.R. No. 134718, August 20, 2001, question was already repudiated as early as 1965
BELLOSILLO, SECOND DIVISION when Luisa, Maria and Guillerma sold the land
Key Doctrine: In actions for reconveyance of property claiming they are the only heirs of Mamerto
predicated on the fact that the conveyance complained of was Ingjug, and when the other compulsory heir,
null and void ab initio, a claim of prescription of action Francisco Ingjug confirmed said sale in 1967.
would be unavailing. "The action or defense for the From that date, plaintiffs had only 10 years to
declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not initiate an action for reconveyance which they
prescribe. "Neither could laches be invoked in the case at failed to do so. Accordingly, "an action for
bar reconveyance based on implied or constructive
Facts trust prescribes in ten years counted from the date
when an adverse title is asserted by the possessor
Mamerto Injug is the owner of a 5,354 of the property" x x x moreover, "the rule in this
sqm. Property located in Marigondon, Lapu-Lapu jurisdiction is that an action to enforce an implied
City. Mamerto died during the Second World trust may be barred not only by prescription but
leaving the property to his 5 children, namely: also by laches in which case repudiation is not
Romana, Francisco, Francisca, Luisa and Maria. even required." The CA affirmed the decision.
Thereafter, Luisa, Maria, Eufemio Ingjug, and
Guillerma Ingjug Fuentes-Pagubo, daughter of Issue
Francisca, sold the disputed land to the Is the action already barred by
respondents3 in July 1965, representing themselves prescription and laches?
as the sole heirs of Mamerto. The sale was Ruling
evidenced by a Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land and
an Extrajudicial Settlement and Confirmation of Sale. No, actions for reconveyance of property
predicated on the fact that the conveyance
On August 1992, the Heirs of Romana, complained of was null and void ab initio, a claim
Fransisco, and Francisca (The petitioners) of prescription of action would be unavailing.
challenged respondents' ownership of the "The action or defense for the declaration of the
property by filing a complaint for Partition, inexistence of a contract does not prescribe."
Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Neither could laches be invoked in the case at bar.
Declaration of Nullity: Deed of Sale of Laches is a doctrine in equity and our courts are
basically courts of law and not courts of equity.
3 The spouses Leon V. Casals and Lilia C.
Equity, which has been aptly described as "justice
Casals, the spouses Carlos L. Climaco and Lydia
R. Climaco, the spouses Jose L. Climaco, Jr. and outside legality," should be applied only in the
Blanquita C. Climaco, and Consuelo L. Climaco absence of, and never against, statutory law.
 A cursory reading of the complaint, OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs.
however, reveals that the action filed by COURT OF APPEALS, et. al [G.R. No.
petitioners was for partition, recovery of 133359. January 31, 2000, MENDOZA, J.]
ownership and possession, declaration of nullity
of a deed of sale of unregistered land and
extrajudicial settlement and confirmation of sale.
KEY DOCTRINE: It is noteworthy that, although
Petitioners' causes of action are premised on their
Rule 73, 1 applies insofar as the venue of the petition for
claim that: (a) the Deed of Sale of Unregistered
probate of the will of Dr. De Santos is concerned, it does
Land is void and of no effect since their respective
not bar other branches of the same court from taking
shares in the inheritance were included in the sale
cognizance of the settlement of the estate of the testator after
without their knowledge and consent, and one of
his death. The jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the
the vendor-signatories therein, Eufemio Ingjug
judges. And when a case is filed in one branch, jurisdiction
(Eufemio Tiro, husband of Romana Ingjug), was
over the case does not attach to the branch or judge alone, to
not even a direct and compulsory heir of the
the exclusion of the other branches. Trial may be held or
decedent; and (b) the Extrajudicial Settlement and
proceedings continue by and before another branch or judge.
Confirmation of Sale is simulated and therefore
null and void ab initio, as it was purportedly
executed in 1967 by, among others, Eufemio Tiro
who was not an heir, and by Francisco Ingjug who FACTS: On July 20, 1995, Dr. Arturo de Santos,
died in 1963. Also, the prayer in the same Filipino and a resident of Makati City, filed a
complaint expressly asks that all those transactions petition for probate of his will in the RTC-Makati,
be declared null and void. In other words, it is the Branch 61, which is docketed as Sp. Proc. No. M-
nullity of the deeds of sale and the extrajudicial 4223. He alleged that he had no compulsory
settlement and confirmation of the sale whcic is heirs; that he had named in his will as sole legatee
the basic hypothesis uon which the instant civil and devisee the Arturo de Santos Foundation,
action rests. Thus, it appears that we are Inc.; that he disposed by his will his properties
dealing here not with simple voidable with an approximate value of not less than
contracts tainted with fraud, but with P2,000,000.00; and that copies of said will were in
contracts that are altogether null and void ab the custody of the named executrix, private
initio. respondent Pacita de los Reyes Phillips.
Considering the foregoing, the trial court Judge Fernando V. Gorospe, Jr. of RTC-
judge should not have summarily dismissed Makati, Branch 61 issued an order granting the
petitioners' complaint; instead, he should have petition and allowing the will. Shortly after the
required the defendants to answer the complaint, probate of his will, Dr. De Santos died on
deferred action on the special defenses of February 26, 1996.
prescription and laches, and ordered the parties to
proceed with the trial on the merits. *Case On April 3, 1996, petitioner Octavio S.
remanded to lower court. Maloles II filed a motion for intervention claiming
that, as the only child of Alicia de Santos (testators
sister) and Octavio L. Maloles, Sr., he was the sole
full-blooded nephew and nearest of kin of Dr. De
OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs.
Santos. He likewise alleged that he was a creditor
PACITA DE LOS REYES PHILLIPS,
of the testator. Petitioner thus prayed for the
respondent. [G.R. No. 129505. January 31,
reconsideration of the order allowing the will and
2000, MENDOZA, J.]
the issuance of letters of administration in his Proc. No. M-4343)," considering that the probate
name. proceedings were commenced with Branch 61.
He thus ordered the transfer of the records back
On the other hand, private respondent to the latter branch. However, he later recalled his
Pacita de los Reyes Phillips, the designated decision and took cognizance of the case "to
executrix of the will, filed a motion for the expedite the proceedings.” In his order, he stated:
issuance of letters testamentary with Branch 61.
Later, however, private respondent moved to Considering the refusal
withdraw her motion. of the Hon. Fernando V.
Gorospe, Jr. of Branch 61 to
Private respondent, who earlier withdrew continue hearing this case
her motion for the issuance of letters testamentary notwithstanding the fact that
in Branch 61, refiled a petition for the same said branch began the probate
purpose with the RTC-Makati, which was proceedings of the estate of the
docketed as Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 and assigned to deceased and must therefore
Branch 65. Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 continue to exercise its
ordered the transfer of Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 to jurisdiction to the exclusion of
Branch 61, on the ground that "[it] is related to all others, until the entire estate
the case before Judge Gorospe of RTC Branch 61 of the testator had been
. . ." partitioned and distributed as
per Order dated 23 September
It appears, however, that in Sp. Proc. No.
1996, this branch (RTC-Makati,
M-4223, Judge Gorospe had denied on August 26,
Branch 65) shall take
1996 petitioners
cognizance of the petition if
motion for intervention on the ground that the only to expedite the
matter is for a separate case to be filed under Rule proceedings, and under the
78 of the Rules of Court and cannot be included concept that the RTC-Makati is
in this case filed under Rule 76 of the Rules of but one court.
Court.. Petitioner brought this matter to the Court
On November 4, 1996, Judge Abad
of Appeals which upheld the denial.
Santos granted petitioners motion for
Meanwhile, Judge Gorospe issued an intervention. Private respondent moved for a
order, dated September 4, 1996, returning the reconsideration but her motion was denied by the
records of Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 to Branch 65 on trial court. On appeal, CA rendered a decision
the ground that there was a pending case setting aside the trial courts order on the ground
involving the Estate of Decedent Arturo de that the petitioner has not shown any right or
Santos pending before said court. It is already interest to intervene in Sp. Proc. No. M-4343.
ruled in Branch 61 that Pacita’s Motion for Hence, this petition.
Issuance of Letters Testamentary already ruled
that the motion could not be admitted as the
subject matter involves a separate case under Rule ISSUES: 1. Did the RTC-Makati, Branch 65
78 of the Rules of Court. acquire jurisdiction over the petition for
issuance of letters testamentary filed by
Initially, Judge Abad Santos appeared firm
(private) respondent?
in his position that " . . . it would be improper for
(Branch 65) to hear and resolve the petition (Sp.
2. Does the petitioner, being a creditor of the probated during the lifetime of the testator, it does
late Dr. Arturo de Santos, has a right to not necessarily mean that he cannot alter or
intervene and oppose the petition for issuance revoke the same before his death. Should he make
of letters testamentary filed by the a new will, it would also be allowable on his
respondent? petition, and if he should die before he has had a
chance to present such petition, the ordinary
3. Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping probate proceeding after the testators death would
in filing her petition for issuance of letters be in order.
testamentary with the RTC- Makati, Branch
65 while the same testate estate of the Thus, after the allowance of the will of
decedent is still pending with the RTC- Dr. De Santos on February 16, 1996, there was
Makati, Branch 61? nothing else for Branch 61 to do except to
issue a certificate of allowance of the will
pursuant to Rule 73, 12 of the Rules of Court.
There is, therefore, no basis for the ruling of
RULING:
Judge Abad Santos of Branch 65 of RTC-
1. YES. Petitioner argues that the proceedings Makati that Branch 61 of the RTC-Makati
must continue until the estate is fully distributed having begun the probate proceedings of the
to the lawful heirs, devisees, and legatees of the estate of the deceased, it continues and shall
testator, pursuant to Rule 73, 1 of the Rules of continue to exercise said jurisdiction to the
Court. Consequently, petitioner contends that exclusion of all others.
Branch 65 could not lawfully act upon private
Petitioner, who defends the order of
respondents petition for issuance of letters
Branch 65 allowing him to intervene, cites Rule
testamentary. The contention has no merit. In
73, 1 which states: “…The court first taking
cases for the probate of wills, it is well-settled that
cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a
the authority of the court is limited to ascertaining
decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the
the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the
exclusion of all other courts.” It is noteworthy
testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the
that, although Rule 73, 1 applies insofar as the
will in accordance with the formalities prescribed
venue of the petition for probate of the will of
by law.
Dr. De Santos is concerned, it does not bar
Ordinarily, probate proceedings are other branches of the same court from taking
instituted only after the death of the testator, so cognizance of the settlement of the estate of
much so that, after approving and allowing the the testator after his death. As held in the
will, the court proceeds to issue letters leading case of Bacalso v. Ramolote: “…The
testamentary and settle the estate of the testator. jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the
The cases cited by petitioner are of such nature. In judges. And when a case is filed in one
fact, in most jurisdictions, courts cannot entertain branch, jurisdiction over the case does not
a petition for probate of the will of a living attach to the branch or judge alone, to the
testator under the principle of ambulatory nature exclusion of the other branches. Trial may be
of wills. However, Art. 838 of the Civil Code held or proceedings continue by and before
authorizes the filing of a petition for probate of another branch or judge.” Necessarily,
the will filed by the testator himself. Rule 76 therefore, Branch 65 of the RTC of Makati City
likewise provides that the testator himself may, has jurisdiction over Sp. Proc. No. M-4343.
during his lifetime, petition in the court for the
allowance of his will. After a will has been
2. The petitioner has no right to intervene. will. Nor does he have any right to intervene in
Petitioner claims the right to intervene in and the settlement proceedings based on his allegation
oppose the petition for issuance of letters that he is a creditor of the deceased. Since the
testamentary filed by private respondent. He testator instituted or named an executor in his will,
argues that, as the nearest next of kin and creditor it is incumbent upon
of the testator, his interest in the matter is material
and direct. In ruling that petitioner has no right to the Court to respect the desires of the testator.
intervene in the proceedings before Branch 65 of Only if the appointed executor is incompetent,
RTC-Makati City, the Court of Appeals held: refuses the trust, or fails to give bond may the
court appoint other persons to administer the
The private estate. None of these circumstances is present in
respondent herein is not an this case.
heir or legatee under the will
of the decedent Arturo de
Santos. Neither is he a
3. NO. As stated earlier, the petition for probate
compulsory heir of the latter.
was filed by Dr. De Santos, the testator, solely for
As the only and nearest
the purpose of authenticating his will. Upon the
collateral relative of the
allowance of his will, the proceedings were
decedent, he can inherit from
terminated.
the latter only in case of
intestacy. Since the decedent On the other hand, the petition for
has left a will which has issuance of letters testamentary was filed by
already been probated and private respondent, as executor of the estate of
disposes of all his properties Dr. De Santos, for the purpose of securing
the private respondent can authority from the Court to administer the estate
inherit only if the said will is and put into effect the will of the testator. The
annulled. His interest in the estate settlement proceedings commenced by the
decedents estate is, therefore, filing of the petition terminates upon the
not direct or immediate. distribution and delivery of the legacies and
devises to the persons named in the will. Clearly,
Applying Rule 79 (1), that it has been held
there is no identity between the two petitions, nor
that an "interested person" is one who would be
was the latter filed during the pendency of the
benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one
former. There was, consequently, no forum
who has a claim against the estate, such as a
shopping.
creditor, and whose interest is material and direct,
not merely incidental or contingent. Even if
petitioner is the nearest next of kin of Dr. De IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE
Santos, he cannot be considered an "heir" of the PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF
testator. It is a fundamental rule of testamentary RUPERTA PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER
succession that one who has no compulsory or FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL
forced heirs may dispose of his entire estate by ADMINISTRATOR, MANUEL MIGUEL
will. PALAGANAS and BENJAMIN GREGORIO
PALAGANAS [G.R. No. 169144, 26 January
Petitioner, as nephew of the testator, is
2011; ABAD, J.]
not a compulsory heir who may have been
preterited in the testators
FACTS:
 • What: This case is about the probate before RULING:
Philippine court of a will executed abroad
by a foreigner although it has not been • Our laws do not prohibit the probate of
probated in its place of execution. wills executed by foreigners abroad
although the same have not as yet been
• In 2011, Ruperta Palaganas (Ruperta), a probated and allowed in the countries of
Filipino who became a naturalized U.S. their execution. A foreign will can be given
citizen, died single and childless. She left legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816
properties in the Philippines and in the U.S. of the Civil Code states that the will of an
In the last will and testament she executed alien who is abroad produces effect in the
in California, she designated her brother, Philippines if made in accordance with the
Sergio C. Palaganas (Sergio), as the executor formalities prescribed by the law of the
of her will. place where he resides, or according to the
• In 2013, respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas formalities observed in his country.
(Ernesto), another brother of Ruperta, filed • The rules do not require proof that the
with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, a foreign will has already been allowed and
petition for the probate of Rupertas' will probated in the country of its execution. In
and for his appointment as special this connection, Section 1, Rule 73 of the
administrator of her estate. However, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas if the decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign
(Manuel) and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas country, the RTC of the province where he
(Benjamin), nephews of Ruperta, opposed has an estate may take cognizance of the
the petition on the ground that Rupertas settlement of such estate.
will should not be probated in the
Philippines but in the U.S. where she • Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state
executed it. Ernesto, they claimed, is also that the executor, devisee, or legatee named
not qualified to act as administrator of the in the will, or any other person interested in
estate. the estate, may, at any time after the death
of the testator, petition the court having
• In 2014, RTC admitted to probate jurisdiction to have the will allowed,
Rupertas’ last will, appointed respondent whether the same be in his possession or
Ernesto as special administrator at the not, or is lost or destroyed.
request of Sergio (the U.S.- based executor)
and issued Letters of Special • Our rules require merely that the petition
Administration to Ernesto. Petitioner for the allowance of a will must show, so
nephews Manuel and Benjamin appealed to far as known to the petitioner: (a) the
the CA, which affirmed the RTC decision. jurisdictional facts; (b) the names, ages,
and residences of the heirs, legatees, and
ISSUE: devisees of the testator or decedent; (c) the
May a will executed by a foreigner abroad probable value and character of the
be probated in the Philippines although it has not property of the estate; (d) the name of the
been previously probated and allowed in the person for whom letters are prayed; and
country where it was executed? (e) if the will has not been delivered to the
court, the name of the person having
custody of it. (NB: Jurisdictional facts refer to
 the fact of death of the decedent, his residence Echin was hired by ATCI Overseas Corporation
at the time of his death in the province where in behalf of its principal, the Ministry of Public
the probate court is sitting, or if he is an Health of Kuwait, for the position of medical
inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he technologist under a two-year contract,
left in such province) denominated as a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA), with a monthly salary of US$1,200.00,
• In insisting that Rupertas will should have wherein all newly-hired employees undergo a
been first probated and allowed by the probationary period of 1 year and are covered by
court of California, petitioners Manuel and Kuwaits Civil Service Board Employment
Benjamin obviously have in mind the Contract No. 2.
procedure for the reprobate of will before
admitting it here. But, reprobate or re- Echin was deployed on February 17, 2000 but was
authentication of a will already probated terminated from employment on February 11,
and allowed in a foreign country is different 2001, she not having allegedly passed the
from that probate where the will is probationary period. She returned to the
presented for the first time before a Philippines on March 17, 2001, shouldering her
competent court. Reprobate is specifically own air fare.
governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of Court.
The latter rule applies only to reprobate of She filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal
a will, it cannot be made to apply to the dismissal against ATCI as the local recruitment
present case. In reprobate, the local court agency, represented by Amalia Ikdal (Ikdal), and
acknowledges as binding the findings of the the Ministry, as the foreign principal. The LA held
foreign probate court provided its that Echin was illegally dismissed and
jurisdiction over the matter can be ordered ATCI, et al. to pay her US$3,600.00,
established. representing her salary for the three
• Besides, petitioners stand is fraught with months unexpired portion of her contract. The
impractically. If the instituted heirs do not NLRC affirmed.
have the means to go abroad for the
probate of the will, it is as good as ATCI, et al. appealed to the CA contending that
depriving them outright of their their principal, the Ministry, being a foreign
inheritance, since our law requires that no government agency, is immune from suit and, as
will shall pass either real or personal such, the immunity extended to them; and that
property unless the will has been proved Echin was validly dismissed for her failure to meet
and allowed by the proper court. the performance rating within the one-year period
as required under Kuwaits Civil Service Laws. The
CA affirmed the NLRC decision.

ISSUE:
1. May Echin recover from the ATCI even
if the latter is a mere agent of the Ministry
ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION, et al. v. which is immune from suit?
MA. JOSEFA ECHIN 2. Did ATCI, et al. discharge its burden of
G.R. No. 178551, 11 October 2010, THIRD proving the foreign law as a basis of
DIVISION, (Carpio-Morales, J.) Echin’s dismissal?
3. Is Ikdal solidarily liable with ATCI?
 3. YES. Respecting Ikdals joint and solidary
RULING: liability as a corporate officer, the same is
1. YES. ATCI, as a private recruitment in order too following the express
agency, cannot evade responsibility for provision of R.A. 8042 on money
the money claims of Overseas Filipino claims, viz:
workers (OFWs) which it deploys abroad SEC. 10. Money Claims. x
by the mere expediency of claiming that x x x If the
its foreign principal is a government recruitment/placement
agency clothed with immunity from suit, agency is a juridical
or that such foreign principals liability being, the corporate
must first be established before it, as officers and directors
agent, can be held jointly and solidarily and partners as the case
liable. may be, shall themselves
be jointly and solidarily
2. NO. It is hornbook principle, however, liable with the
that the party invoking the application of corporation or
a foreign law has the burden of proving partnership for the
the law, under the doctrine of processual aforesaid claims and
presumptionwhich, in this case, petitioners damages.
failed to discharge.
The Philippines does not take judicial NOTE: The case does not relate
notice of foreign laws, hence, they must anything about SpecPro. Please be guided
not only be alleged; they must be accordingly. Thanks. -Dex
proven. To prove a foreign law, the party
invoking it must present a copy thereof
and comply with Sections 24 and 25 Gonzaless vs.. Aguinaldo ((1990))
of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of G.R. No. 74769 | 1990-09-28
Court. Subject: Appointment of an estate administrator;
The documents presented, whether taken Removal of an administrator requires just cause;
singly or as a whole, do not sufficiently Disagreements and conflict between co-
prove that respondent was validly administrators is not a ground for removal;
terminated as a probationary employee Temporary absence from the country is not a
under Kuwaiti civil service laws. Instead ground for disqualification or removal of an
of submitting a copy of the pertinent administrator; Removal of an administrator does
Kuwaiti labor laws duly authenticated and not lie on the dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries
translated by Embassy officials thereat, as of the estate.
required under the Rules, what ATCI, et
al. submitted were mere certifications Facts:
attesting only to the correctness of the Special Proceedings No. 021 is an intestate
translations of the MOA and the proceeding involving the estate of the deceased
termination letter which does not prove at Doña Ramona Gonzales Vda. de Favis. Doña
all that Kuwaiti civil service laws differ Ramona is survived by her four children who are
from Philippine laws and that under such her only heirs, namely, Asterio Favis, Beatriz F.
Kuwaiti laws, respondent was validly Gonzales, Teresa F. Olbes, and Cecilia Favis-
terminated. Gomez.
 Held:
In 1983, the court appointed Beatriz F. Gonzales Appointment of an estate administrator
(petitioner) and Teresa Olbes ( private 1. The rule is that if no executor is named in the
respondent) as co-administratrices of the estate. will, or the named executor or executors are
incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond,
On 11 November 1984, while Beatriz Gonzales or a person dies intestate, the court must appoint
was in the United States accompanying her ailing an administrator of the estate of the deceased who
husband who was receiving medical treatment in shall act as representative not only of the court
that country, respondent Teresa Olbes filed a appointing him but also of the heirs and the
motion to remove her sister Beatriz as creditors of the estate. In the exercise of its
coadministratrix, on the ground that she is discretion, the probate court may appoint one,
incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust and two or more co-administrators to have the benefit
had committed acts and omissions detrimental to of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have
the interest of the estate and the heirs. Copy of different interests represented.
said motion was served upon petitioner's then
counsel of record, Atty. Manuel Castro who, since In the appointment of the administrator of the
2 June 1984, had been suspended by the Supreme estate of a deceased person, the principal
Court from the practice of law throughout the consideration reckoned with is the interest in said
Philippines. estate of the one to be appointed as administrator.
This is the same consideration which Section 6 of
Judge Aguinaldo issued an Order which required Rule 78 takes into account in establishing the
Beatriz Gonzales and the other parties to file their order of preference in the appointment of
opposition. Only Asterio Favis opposed the administrators for the estate. The underlying
removal of Beatriz as coadministratrix, as the assumption behind this rule is that those who will
latter was still in the United States attending to her reap the benefit of a wise, speedy, economical
ailing husband. administration of the estate, or, on the other hand,
suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence
Judge Aguinaldo cancelled the letters of or mismanagement, have the highest interest and
administration granted to Beatriz Gonzales and most influential motive to administer the estate
retained Teresa Olbes as the administratrix of the correctly.
estate of the late Ramona Gonzales.
Beatriz Gonzales moved to reconsider the Order Removal of an administrator requires just
but the same was opposed by Teresa Olbes and cause
another co-heir Cecilia Gomez. The judge denied 3. Administrators have such an interest in the
the motion for lack of merit. Hence, the present execution of their trust as entitle them to
petition where Beatriz Gonzales contends that protection from removal without just cause.
Judge Aguinaldo's Order should be nullified on Hence, Section 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court
the ground of grave abuse of discretion, as her provides the legal and specific causes authorizing
removal was not shown by respondents to be the court to remove an administrator.
anchored on any of the grounds provided under
Section 2, Rule 82, Rules of Court. While it is conceded that the court is invested with
ample discretion in the removal of an
administrator, it however must have some fact
legally before it in order to justify a removal.
There must be evidence of an act or omission on
the part of the administrator not conformable to Temporary absence from the country is not a
or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the ground for disqualification or removal of an
court, which it deems sufficient or substantial to administrator
warrant the removal of the administrator. In 8. Judge Aguinaldo removed petitioner Beatriz
making such a determination, the court must Gonzales as coadministratrix of the estate also on
exercise good judgment, guided by law and the ground that she had been absent from the
precedents. country since October 1984 and had not returned
as of 15 January 1985, the date of the questioned
Disagreements and conflict between co- order, leaving respondent Teresa Olbes alone to
administrators is not a ground for removal administer the estate.
The court did not base the removal of the
petitioner as coadministratrix on any of the causes 9. It appears that petitioner's absence from the
specified in respondent's motion for relief of the country was known to respondent Olbes, and that
petitioner. Neither did it dwell on, nor determine the latter and petitioner Gonzales had continually
the validity of the charges brought against maintained correspondence with each other with
petitioner by Teresa Olbes. The court based the respect to the administration of the estate during
removal of the petitioner on the fact that in the the petitioner's absence from the country. As a
administration of the estate, conflicts and matter of fact, petitioner, while in the United
misunderstandings have existed between States, sent respondent Olbes a letter addressed to
petitioner and respondent Teresa Olbes which the Land Bank of the Philippines dated 14
allegedly have prejudiced the estate. November 1984, and duly authenticated by the
Philippine Consulate in San Francisco, authorizing
6. Certainly, it is desirable that the administration her (Olbes) to receive, and collect the interests
of the deceased's estate be marked with accruing from the Land Bank bonds belonging to
harmonious relations between co-administrators. the estate, and to use them for the payment of
But for mere disagreements between such joint accounts necessary for the operation of the
fiduciaries, without misconduct, one's removal is administration.
not favored. Conflicts of opinion and judgment 10. This shows that petitioner had never
naturally, and, perhaps inevitably, occur between abandoned her role as co-administratrix of the
persons with different interests in the same estate. estate nor had she been remiss in the fulfillment
Such conflicts, if unresolved by the co- of her duties. Suffice it to state, temporary absence
administrators, can be resolved by the probate in the state does not disqualify one to be an
court to the best interest of the estate and its heirs. administrator of the estate.

The court a quo failed to find hard facts showing 11. A temporary absence from the state on
that the conflict and disharmony between the two account of ill health, or on account of business, or
co-administratrices were unjustly caused by for purposes of travel or pleasure, would not
petitioner, or that petitioner was guilty of necessarily establish the fact that an executor `has
incompetence in the fulfillment of her duties, or removed' from the estate, within the intent of
prevented the management of the estate according the statute. (In re: Mc Knight's Will)
to the dictates of prudence, or any other act or
omission showing that her continuance as co-
administratrix of the estate materially endangers
the interests of the estate.
Removal of an administrator does not lie on Respondent further averred that petitioner has
the dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries of the caused the annotation of an affidavit executed by
estate Ismael Tayag declaring the properties to be the
12. The court a quo seeks refuge in the fact that paraphernal properties of petitioner. The latter
two (2) of the other three (3) heirs of the estate of allegedly intends to dispose of these properties to
the deceased (Teresa Olbes and Cecilia Favis the respondent’s and her brothers’ prejudice.
Gomez) have opposed the retention or re-
appointment of petitioner as co-administratrix of Petitioner opposed the petition, asserting that she
the estate. Suffice it to state that the removal of purchased the properties subject of the petition
an administrator does not lie on the whims, using her own money. She claimed that she and
caprices and dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries Ismael Tayag got married in Las Vegas, and that
of the estate, nor on the belief of the court that it they have an adopted daughter, Carmela Tayag.
would result in orderly and efficient Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the suit
administration. because respondent failed to state a cause of
action.
13. As the appointment of petitioner Beatriz F.
Gonzales was valid, and no satisfactory cause for In a Motion, petitioner reiterated her sole
her removal was shown, the court a quo gravely ownership of the properties and presented the
abused its discretion in removing her. Stated transfer certificates of title thereof in her name.
differently, petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales was She also averred that it is necessary to allege
removed without just cause. Her removal was that respondent was acknowledged and
therefore improper. recognized by Ismael Tayag as his
illegitimate child. There being no such
allegation, the action becomes one to compel
VICTORIA TAYAG VS FELICIDAD recognition which cannot be brought after the
TAYAG-GALLOR (2008) death of the putative father.

Facts: In 2001, respondent Felicidad A. Tayag- Trial court: ruled in favor of respondent, denying
Gallor, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of the Motion to dismiss filed by petitioner.
administration over the estate of Ismael Tayag.
Respondent alleged that she is one of the three CA: affirmed the denial, directing the trial court to
illegitimate children of the late Ismael Tayag and proceed with the case. The Court of Appeals
Ester C. Angeles. The decedent was married to ruled, in essence, that the allegation that
petitioner herein, Victoria C. Tayag, but the two respondent is an illegitimate child suffices for a
allegedly did not have any children of their own. cause of action, without need to state that she had
been recognized and acknowledged as such.
In 2000, Ismael Tayag died intestate, leaving However, respondent still has to prove her
behind two real properties both of which are in allegation and, correspondingly, petitioner
the possession of petitioner, and a motor vehicle has the right to refute the allegation in the
which the latter sold. Petitioner allegedly promised course of the settlement proceedings.
to give respondent and her brothers P100,000.00
each as their share in the proceeds of the sale. Issue: whether respondent’s petition for the
However, petitioner only gave each of them half issuance of letters of administration sufficiently
the amount she promised. states a cause of action considering that
respondent merely alleged therein that she is an
illegitimate child of the decedent, without stating
that she had been acknowledged or recognized as foreclosed by the death of her father, or whether
such by the latter. indeed she has a material and direct interest to
maintain the suit by reason of the decedent’s
Ruling: Yes. voluntary acknowledgment or recognition of her
illegitimate filiation.
Rule 79 of the Rules of Court provides that a
petition for the issuance of letters of
The appellate court was, therefore, correct in
administration must be filed by an interested
allowing the proceedings to continue, ruling
person. Court defined an interested party as one
that, "respondent still has the duty to prove
who would be benefited by the estate, such as an
the allegation (that she is an illegitimate child
heir, or one who has a claim against the estate,
of the decedent), just as the petitioner has the
such as a creditor. This interest, furthermore, must
right to disprove it, in the course of the
be material and direct, not merely indirect or
settlement proceedings."
contingent.

Essentially, the petition for the issuance of letters

of administration is a suit for the settlement of the
ANTONIETTA GARCIA VDA. DE
intestate estate of Ismael Tayag. The right of
CHUA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
respondent to maintain such a suit is dependent
(Special Eight Division), HON. JAPAL M.
on whether she is entitled to successional rights as
GUIANI, RTC, Branch 14, 12th Judicial
an illegitimate child of the decedent which, in
Region, Cotabato City, and FLORITA A.
turn, may be established through voluntary or
VALLEJO, as Administratrix of the Estate of
compulsory recognition.
the late Roberto L. Chua, respondents
Voluntary recognition must be express such as G.R. No. 116835 March 5, 1998, J. Kapunan
that in a record of birth appearing in the civil
register, a final judgment, a public instrument or During his lifetime, Roberto Lim Chua lived out
private handwritten instrument signed by the of wedlock with private respondent Florita A.
parent concerned. The voluntary recognition of an Vallejo from 1970 up to 1981. The couple begot
illegitimate child by his or her parent needs no two illegitimate children, namely, Roberto Rafson
further court action and is, therefore, not subject Alonzo and Rudyard Pride Alonzo.
to the limitation that the action for recognition be
brought during the lifetime of the putative parent.
Judicial or compulsory recognition, on the On 28 May 1992, Roberto Chua died intestate in
other hand, may be demanded by the illegitimate Davao City. Florita thereafter filed with the RTC
child of his parents and must be brought during
Cotabato City a Petition for: Declaration of
the lifetime of the presumed parents.
heirship; guardianship over the persons and
properties of minors Robert and Rudyard; and
Respondent in this case had not been given the
issuance of letters of administration. The petition
opportunity to present evidence to show whether
states that sometime from 1970 up to and until
she had been voluntarily recognized and
late 1981 Florita lived with Chua as husband and
acknowledged by her deceased father because of
wife and out of said union they begot two
petitioner’s opposition to her petition and motion
children; that Chua died intestate in Davao City
for hearing on affirmative defenses. There is, as
and left properties worth P5,000,000; and that
yet, no way to determine if her petition is actually
Chua died single and without legitimate
one to compel recognition which had already been
ascendants or descendants, hence the above- issuance of letters of administration. Section 2,
named minors shall succeed to the entire estate. Rule 79 of the Rules of Court reads:

Sec. 2. Contents of petition for letters of

Petitioner Antonietta Garcia Vda. de Chua administration — A petition for letters of
representing to be the surviving spouse of administration must be filed by an
Roberto Chua, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the interested person and must show, so far
ground of improper venue. Petitioner alleged that as known to the petitioner:
at the time of the decedent's death Davao City was
his residence, hence, RTC of Davao City is the (a) jurisdictional facts;
proper forum. The trial court denied the motion (b) The names, ages, and residences of the
to dismiss for lack of merit ruling that Garcia had heirs and the names and residences of the
no personality to file the motion not having creditors, of the decedent;
proven her status as wife of decedent. The court (c) The probative value and character of
did not admit the Xerox copy of the allege the property of the estate;.
marriage contract between Chua and petitioner (d) The name of the person for whom
because the best evidence is the original or letters of administration are prayed;
authenticated copy which Garcia cannot produce. But no defect in the petition shall render void the
Further, Florita presented a certification from the issuance of letters of administration. (emphasis
local civil registrar concerned that no such ours).
marriage contract was ever registered with them; a
letter from the judge alleged to have solemnized The jurisdictional facts required in a petition for
the wedding, that he has not solemnized such issuance of letters of administration are: (1) the
alleged marriage. death of the testator; (2) residence at the time of
death in the province where the probate court is
Thereafter, Garcia filed a Motion praying that the located; and (3) if the decedent was a non-
letters of administration issued to Vallejo be resident, the fact of being a resident of a foreign
recalled and that new letters of administration be country and that the decedent has left an estate in
issued to her. She, likewise, filed a Motion to the province where the court is sitting.
declare the proceedings a mistrial. Both motions
were denied by the trial court. While paragraph 4 of the original petition stating:

(4) That Roberto Lim Chua, father of the

Issues:
above mentioned minors, died intestate
1. Is there a need to publish the amended
on May 28, 1992 in Davao City.
petition for administration where the
amendment is due to failure to indicate
failed to indicate the residence of the deceased at
residence of decedent?
the time of his death, the omission was cured by
2. Does petitioner have legal standing to file
the amended petitions wherein the same
a motion to dismiss?
paragraph now reads:
Held:
(4) That Roberto Lim Chua, father of the
abovementioned minors is a resident of
1. No. The original petition contains the
Cotabato City and died intestate on May 28,
jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the
 1992 at Davao City (Emphasis in the LUIS L. CO v. HON. RICARDO R.
original.) ROSARIO
G.R. No. 160671, April 30, 2008, THIRD
All told the original petition alleged substantially DIVISION, (NACHURA, J.)
all the facts required to be stated in the petition
for letters of administration. Consequently, there Settled is the rule that the selection or removal
was no need to publish the amended petition as of special administrators is not governed by the rules
petitioner would insist. regarding the selection or removal
of regular administrators. Courts may appoint or
Be that as it may, petitioner has no legal standing remove special administrators based on grounds other than
to file the motion to dismiss as she is not related those enumerated in the Rules, at their discretion. As long
to the deceased, nor does she have any interest in as the said discretion is exercised without grave abuse,
his estate as creditor or otherwise. The Rules are higher courts will not interfere with it.
explicit on who may do so:
On March 4, 1998, the Regional Trial
Sec. 4. Opposition to petition for Court (RTC) OF Makati City, Branch 66, in Sp.
administration — Any interested person, Proc. No. M-4615, appointed petitioner and
may by filing a written opposition, contest Vicente O. Yu, Sr. as the special administrators of
the petition on the ground of the estate of the petitioner's father, Co Bun Chun.
incompetency of the person for whom However, on motion of the other heirs, the trial
letters of administration are prayed court set aside petitioner's appointment as special
therein, or on the ground of the co-administrator. Petitioner consequently,
contestant's own right to the nominated his son, Alvin Milton Co for
administration, and may pray that letters appointment as co-administrator of the estate. The
issue to himself, or to any competent RTC appointed Alvin as special co-administrator.
person or persons named in the
opposition. Almost four years thereafter, the RTC,
acting on a motion filed by one of the heirs, issued
Only an interested person may oppose the its January 22, 2002 Order revoking and setting
petition for issuance of letters of administration. aside the appointment of Alvin. The trial court
An interested person is one who would be reasoned that Alvin had become unsuitable to
benefited by the estate such as an heir, or one discharge the trust given to him as special co-
who has a claim against the estate, such as a administrator because his capacity, ability or
creditor; his interest is material and direct, competence to perform the functions of co-
and not one that is only indirect or contingent. administrator had been beclouded by the filing of
several criminal cases against him, which, even if
Petitioner was not able to prove her status as the there was no conviction yet, had provided the
surviving wife of the decedent. The best proof of heirs ample reason to doubt his fitness to handle
marriage between man and wife is a marriage the subject estate with utmost fidelity, trust and
contract, which Antonietta Chua failed to confidence. Aggrieved, petitioner moved for the
produce. The lower court correctly disregarded reconsideration of the said Order, but this was
the photostat copy of the marriage certificate denied in the RTC Order. In CA, the appellate
which she presented, this being a violation of the court affirmed the revocation of the appointment
best evidence rule, together with other worthless and dismissed the petition. Thus, the instant
pieces of evidence. petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
 In ruling to revoke the appointment of
ISSUE: Did the trial court err in revoking the Alvin Milton Co, the lower court took into
appointment of Alvin as co-administrator? consideration the fiduciary nature of the office of
a special administrator which demands a high
HELD: NO degree of trust and confidence in the person to be
appointed. The court a quo observed that,
We affirm the appellate court's ruling that burdened with the criminal charges of falsification
the trial court did not act with grave abuse of of commercial documents leveled against him
discretion in revoking Alvin's appointment as (sic), and the corresponding profound duty to
special co-administrator. Settled is the rule that the defend himself in these proceedings, Alvin Milton
selection or removal of special administrators is not Co's ability and qualification to act as special co-
governed by the rules regarding the selection or administrator of the estate of the decedent are
removal of regular administrators. Courts may beclouded, and the recall of his appointment is
appoint or remove special administrators based on only proper under the attendant circumstances.
grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules, Such reasoning by the court a quo finds basis in
at their discretion. As long as the said discretion is actual logic and probability. Without condemning
exercised without grave abuse, higher courts will the accused man (sic) as guilty before he is found
not interfere with it. This, however, is no authority such by the appropriate tribunal, the court merely
for the judge to become partial, or to make his declared that it is more consistent with the
personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his demands of justice and orderly processes that the
passions to rule, his judgment. The exercise of petitioner's son, who is already bidden to defend
such discretion must be based on reason, equity, himself against criminal charges for falsification in
justice and legal principles. other fora be relieved of his duties and functions
as special administrator, to avoid conflicts and
Thus, even if a special administrator had possible abuse.
already been appointed, once the court finds the
appointee no longer entitled to its confidence, it is The Court finds no grave abuse of discretion
justified in withdrawing the appointment and attending such ruling, as it was reached based on
giving no valid effect thereto.The special the court a quo's own fair assessment of the
administrator is an officer of the court who is circumstances attending the case below, and the
subject to its supervision and control and who is applicable laws.
expected to work for the best interest of the entire
estate, especially with respect to its smooth As a final note, the Court observes that
administration and earliest settlement. this prolonged litigation on the simple issue of the
removal of a special co-administrator could have
In this case, we find that the trial court's judgment been avoided if the trial court promptly appointed
on the issue of Alvin's removal as special co- a regular administrator. We, therefore, direct the
administrator is grounded on reason, equity, trial court to proceed with the appointment of a
justice and legal principle. It is not characterized regular administrator as soon as practicable.
by patent and gross capriciousness, pure whim
and abuse, arbitrariness or despotism, as to be
correctible by the writ of certiorari. In fact, the
appellate court correctly observed that:
ANGELA PUENTEVELLA ECHAUS v. Echaus prayed for the resolution of her
HON. RAMON BLANCO, PHILIPPINE previous motion to direct payment of the
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, judgment credit which was held in abeyance.
AND AVELINA MAGNO Judge Ramon Blanco issued an order reiterating
G.R. No. 30453, December 4, 1989 his position that the motion to direct payment of
(Medialdea, J.) the judgment credit cannot yet be resolved and
holding in abeyance the resolution thereof in view
Key Doctrine: “The period prescribed in the notice to of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the
creditors is not exclusive; that money claims against the Supreme Court. Furthermore, that he is not
estate may be allowed any time before an order of restrained from approving final deeds of sale
distribution is entered, at the discretion of the court for executed by the Administrator PCIB covering
cause and upon such terms as are equitable. At the time properties of the respective estates and that he can
petitioner's motion to direct payment of the judgment credit act on such other routinary administrative matters
was filed, no order of distribution was issued yet.” necessary for the gathering and preservation of the
estate.
Angelina Echaus, in her own behalf and
as Administratrix of the intestate estate of her Echaus filed the instant petition for
deceased father Luis Puentevella, assisted by her mandamus seeking to set aside Judge Blanco's
husband, Rene Echaus, filed a complaint against order and to order PCIB to pay the judgment
Charles Newton Hodges praying for an credit in the civil case. On the other hand, PCIB
accounting of the business covering the Ba-Ta and Magno contend that the judgment is null and
Subdivision, the recovery of her share in the void for having been rendered without
profits and remaining assets of their business and jurisdiction. Money claims against a defendant
the payment of expenses and moral and exemplary who dies without a judgment having been
damages. Later, the counsel for Hodges rendered in the RTC shall be dismissed and
manifested that Hodges died. No motion to prosecuted as a claim in the estate proceeding.
dismiss was filed by C. N. Hodges' counsel. The Magno further claims that the judgment sought to
trial court ordered the substitution of the be enforced is barred under the Rules of Court.
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank The proceedings for the settlement of the estate
(PCIB), as administrator of the estate of deceased of C. N. Hodges was opened in 1962 and the
Hodges, as party defendant. Thereafter, a petition notice to creditors was published in "Yuhum," a
for the settlement of the estate of Hodges was newspaper of general circulation in its issues of
instituted. Later, a judgment was rendered by the March 12, 10, and 27, 1963. Under Section 2, Rule
trial court in favor of Echaus. However, the writ 27 of the Rules of Court, the time provided for
of execution was not enforced as Echaus opted to filing claims against the estate shall be stated by
file a motion for the payment of the judgment. the court in the notice, which shall not be more
Avelina Magno, as administratrix of the estate of than twelve (12) months nor less than six (6)
the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges (wife of C. N. months after the date of its first publication. Since
Hodges) opposed the motion. Judge Ramon Echaus filed her motion to direct payment only on
Blanco, issued an order holding in abeyance the February 20, 1967, which is more than four years
resolution of the motion of Echaus for payment from the publication of the notice then, it is
of the judgment rendered in her favor until after already barred.
the resolution of the "Petition for Relief from
ISSUE:
Judgment" filed by Magno which was later denied
since Linnie Hodges was not a party to the case.
 Can Echaus still file her claim even after cite herein a situation, similar to the case at bar,
the period set by the court in the notice to which was considered by this court as a good
creditors? excuse for the late filing of a claim against the
decedent:
HELD:
"Here, the claim was filed in the probate
YES. When PCIB as administrator of the court on February 25, 1959, while the defendants
estate of C. N. Hodges was ordered to he in the civil case were still perfecting their appeal
substituted as defendant, it registered no objection therein. The record does not show that the
to the order. Thus, even if We admit for the sake administrator objected thereto upon the ground
of argument that the trial court, after the death of that it was filed out of time. The pendency of that
C. N. Hodges has no jurisdiction to render a case, we are persuaded, to say is a good excuse for
judgment therein, the argument must fail. PCIB, tardiness in the filing of the claim. And the order
participated actively in the said case. It did not of the final distribution is still to be given."
appeal the decision rendered therein, neither did it
raise the issue of jurisdiction at any stage. It has
been consistently held by this court that while lack
of jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
party's active participation in the proceedings EDMUND SANTIBANEZ and FLORENCE
before the court without jurisdiction will estop SANTIBANEZ ARIOLA
such party from assailing such lack of jurisdiction. G.R. No. 149926, February 23, 2005, Second
Division (Callejo, Sr. J.)
Moreover, the argument of Magno is not The petitioner, purportedly a creditor of the late Efraim
correct. The Rules of Court allows a creditor to Santibaez, should have thus filed its money claim with the
file his claim after the period set by the court in probate court in accordance with Section 5, Rule 86 of the
the notice to creditors, provided the conditions Revised Rules of Court. The filing of a money claim
stated in the rules are present. The rule provides: against the decedent’s estate in the probate court is
mandatory.
"Sec. 2. Time within which claims shall be
filed. ---- . . . . However, at any time before an First Countryside Credit Corporation
order of distribution is entered, on application of a (FCCC) and Efraim Santibanez entered into a loan
creditor who has failed to file his claim within the agreement in the amount of P128,000 intended
time previously limited, the court may, for cause for the payment of one Ford 6600 Agricultural
shown and on such terms as are equitable, allow All-purpose Diesel Tractor. In view thereof,
such claim to be filed within a time not exceeding Efraim and his son, Edmund executed a
one (1) month." (Rule 86). promissory note in favour of the FCCC payable in
five equal annual amortizations. FCCC and
It is clear from the foregoing that the Efraim entered into another loan agreement in the
period prescribed in the notice to creditors is amount of P123,156 for the payment of another
not exclusive; that money claims against the tractor with accessories and a Howard Rotamotor.
estate may be allowed any time before an Again, Efraim and Edmund executed a
order of distribution is entered, at the promissory note as well as a Continuing Guaranty
discretion of the court for cause and upon Agreement.
such terms as are equitable. At the time
petitioner's motion to direct payment of the Sometime in February 1981, Efraim died leaving a
judgment credit was filed, no order of holographic will. Edmund was appointed as the
distribution was issued yet. Also, it is worthy to special administrator of the estate of the decedent.
During the pendency of the testate proceedings, 1. NO. In our jurisdiction, the rule is that
Edmund and his sister Florence Santibanez Ariola there can be no valid partition among
executed a Joint Agreement wherein they agreed heirs until after the will has been
to divide between themselves and take possession probated. any partition involving the said
of the three tractors: 2 for Edmund and 1 for tractors among the heirs is not valid. The
Florence. Each of them was to assume the joint agreement executed by Edmund and
indebtedness of their late father to FCCC, Florence, partitioning the tractors among
corresponding to the tractor respectively taken by themselves, is invalid, specially so since at
them. the time of its execution, there was
already a pending proceeding for the
On August 20, 1981, a Deed of Assignment with probate of their late father’s holographic
Assumption of Liabilities was executed between will covering the said tractors. It must be
FCCC and Union Bank, wherein FCCC assigned stressed that the probate proceeding had
all its assets and liabilities to Union Bank. Union already acquired jurisdiction over all the
Bank sent demand letters to Edmund for the properties of the deceased, including the
settlement of his account, but the same went three (3) tractors. To dispose of them in
unheeded. The Bank then filed a Complaint for any way without the probate courts
sum of money against Efraim’s heirs. Summonses approval is tantamount to divesting it
were issued to both Edmund and Florence but with jurisdiction which the Court cannot
since Edmund was in the US at that time, the allow.
complaint was narrowed down to Florence. She
filed her Answer alleging that the loan documents 2. NO. The assumption of liability was
do not bind her as she was not a party thereto. conditioned upon the happening of an
Considering that the Joint Agreement signed by event, that is, that each heir shall take
her and Edmund was not approved by the probate possession and use of their respective
court, it was null and void; hence she was not share under the agreement. It was made
liable to petitioner. dependent on the validity of the partition,
and that they were to assume the
RTC dismissed the complaint and stated that the
indebtedness corresponding to the chattel
petitioner should have filed its claim with the
that they were each to receive. The
probate court. On appeal, petitioner asserted that
partition being invalid as earlier discussed,
the obligation of the deceased had passed to his
the heirs in effect did not receive any such
legitimate children and heirs. The CA did not
tractor. It follows then that the
agree with this contention and affirmed in toto the
assumption of liability cannot be given
ruling of the lower court.
any force and effect.
ISSUE.
3. NO. The Court notes that the loan was
1. Is the partition in the Agreement contracted by the decedent. The
executed by the heirs valid? NO. petitioner, purportedly a creditor of
2. Was the assumption by the heirs of the the late Efraim Santibaez, should have
indebtedness of the deceased valid? NO. thus filed its money claim with the
3. Can the petitioner hold the heirs liable on probate court in accordance with
the obligation of the deceased? NO. (Sec. Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised
5, Rule 86). Rules of Court. The filing of a money
claim against the decedent’s estate in
HELD.
the probate court is mandatory. As we of the decedent under the said promissory
held in the vintage case of Py Eng Chong v. notes and continuing guaranty, of course,
Herrera: subject to any defenses Edmund may
This requirement is for have as against the petitioner. As the
the purpose of court had not acquired jurisdiction over
protecting the estate of the person of Edmund, we find it
the deceased by unnecessary to delve into the matter
informing the executor further.
or administrator of the
claims against it, thus
enabling him to examine ALFREDO HILADO, LOPEZ SUGAR
each claim and to CORPORATION, FIRST FARMERS
determine whether it is a HOLDING CORPORATION,
proper one which should PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE
be allowed. The plain COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE
and obvious design of AMOR A. REYES, PRESIDING JUDGE,
the rule is the speedy REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA,
settlement of the affairs BRANCH 21 AND ADMINISTRATRIX
of the deceased and the JULITA CAMPOS BENEDICTO,
early delivery of the RESPONDENTS.
property to the G.R. No. 164108, May 08, 2009, SECOND
distributees, legatees, or DIVISION, Tinga, J.
heirs. The law strictly Key Doctrine: The Rules of Special Proceedings allows
requires the prompt not just creditors, but also "any person interested" or
presentation and "persons interested in the estate" various specified capacities
disposition of the claims to protect their respective interests in the estate (not
against the decedent's necessarily intervene). Anybody with a contingent claim
estate in order to settle based on a pending action for quasi-delict against a
the affairs of the estate decedent may be reasonably concerned that by the time
as soon as possible, pay judgment is rendered in their favor, the estate of the decedent
off its debts and would have already been distributed, or diminished to the
distribute the residue. extent that the judgment could no longer be enforced against
it.
Perusing the records of the case, nothing
Facts
therein could hold private respondent
Florence S. Ariola accountable for any On 25 May 2000, Julita Campos
liability incurred by her late father. The Benedicto filed with the RTC of Manila a petition
documentary evidence presented, for the issuance of letters of administration in her
particularly the promissory notes and the favor after the death of her husband, Roberto
continuing guaranty agreement, were Benedicto. The RTC presided by Judge Amor
executed and signed only by the late Reyes issued an order appointing private
Efraim Santibaez and his son Edmund. respondent as administrator of the estate of her
As the petitioner failed to file its money deceased husband, and issuing letters of
claim with the probate court, at most, it administration in her favor.
may only go after Edmund as co-maker
 In January 2001, private respondent Ruling
submitted an Inventory of the Estate, Lists of No, it could already be concluded that
Personal and Real Properties, and Liabilities of the notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72, intervention
Estate of her deceased husband. In the List of as set forth under Rule 19 does not extend to
Liabilities attached to the inventory, private creditors of a decedent whose credit is based on a
respondent included as among the liabilities, the contingent claim. The definition of "intervention"
two pending claims where the petitioners are under Rule 19 simply does not accommodate
parties thereto, then being litigated before the contingent claims.
Bacolod City courts. Private respondent stated
that the amounts of liability corresponding to the Had the claims of petitioners against
two cases as P136,045,772.50 for Civil Case No. Benedicto been based on contract, whether
95-9137 and P35,198,697.40 for Civil Case No. express or implied, then they should have filed
11178. Thereafter, the Manila RTC required their claim, even if contingent, under the aegis of
private respondent to submit a complete and the notice to creditors to be issued by the court
updated inventory and appraisal report pertaining immediately after granting letters of administration
to the estate. and published by the administrator immediately
after the issuance of such notice. However, it
Petitioners filed a Motion Ex Abundanti appears that the claims against Benedicto were
Cautela, praying that they be furnished with copies based on tort, as they arose from his actions in
of all processes and orders pertaining to the connection with Philsucom, Nasutra and Traders
intestate proceedings. The Manila RTC issued an Royal Bank. Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict
order denying the manifestation/motion, on the do not fall within the class of claims to be filed
ground that petitioners are not interested parties. under the notice to creditors required under Rule
The petitioners thereafter elevated their prayer to 86. These actions, being as they are civil, survive
the CA claiming that they have the right to the death of the decedent and may be commenced
intervene since Benedicto is the defendant in the against the administrator pursuant to Section 1,
civil cases lodged with the RTC of Bacolod. Rule 87. Indeed, the records indicate that the
The CA dismissed the petition and intestate estate of Benedicto, as represented by its
declaring that the Manila RTC did not abuse its administrator, was successfully impleaded in Civil
discretion in refusing to allow petitioners to Case No. 11178, whereas the other civil case was
intervene in the intestate proceedings. The already pending review before this Court at the
allowance or disallowance of a motion to time of Benedicto's death.
intervene, according to the appellate court, is However, even if it were declared that
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. petitioners have no right to intervene in
The CA cited the fact that the claims of accordance with Rule 19, it would not necessarily
petitioners against the decedent were in fact mean the disallowance of the reliefs they had
contingent or expectant, as these were still sought before the RTC since the right to intervene
pending litigation in separate proceedings before is not one of those reliefs. While there is no
other courts. general right to intervene on the part of the
Issue petitioners, they may be allowed to seek certain
Did the lower court err in not allowing prayers4 or reliefs from the intestate court not
the petitioners to intervene in the intestate
proceedings? (NO) are they entitled to notices and 4 Petitioners had sought three specific reliefs that
rights of interested persons in settlement of were denied by the courts a quo. First, they prayed that they
be henceforth furnished "copies of all processes and orders
estates? (Yes) issued" by the intestate court as well as the pleadings filed by
explicitly provided for under the Rules, if the providing a viable means by which the interests of
prayer or relief sought is necessary to protect their the creditors in the estate are preserved.
interest in the estate, and there is no other As to the second prayer and third prayer,
modality under the Rules by which such interests the court must deny. There are reliefs available to
can be protected. compel an administrator to perform either duty,
Petitioners' interests in the estate of but a person whose claim against the estate is still
Benedicto may be inchoate interests, but they are contingent is not the party entitled to do so.
viable interests nonetheless. The Rules of Special
Proceedings allows not just creditors, but also
"any person interested" or "persons interested in ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA v. FE VDA.
the estate" various specified capacities to protect DE TE, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact,
their respective interests in the estate. Anybody FAUSTINO CASTAEDA
with a contingent claim based on a pending action
G.R. No. 175910, 30 July 2009, THIRD
for quasi-delict against a decedent may be
DIVISION, (Peralta, J.)
reasonably concerned that by the time judgment is
rendered in their favor, the estate of the decedent Agency is extinguished by the death of the principal. The
would have already been distributed, or only exception where the agency shall remain in full force
diminished to the extent that the judgment could and effect even after the death of the principal is when if it
no longer be enforced against it. has been constituted in the common interest of the latter and
As to the first prayer, allowing creditors, of the agent, or in the interest of a third person who has
contingent or otherwise, access to the records of accepted the stipulation in his favor.
the intestate proceedings is an eminently
In the case Patricio Sereno v. Teodoro Gasing/Truck
preferable precedent than mandating the service
Operator, Sereno has been illegally dismissed and
of court processes and pleadings upon them. In
ordered Gasing to pay him his monetary claims in
either case, the interest of the creditor in seeing to
the amount of P43,606.47. After the Writ of
it that the assets are being preserved and disposed
Execution was returned unsatisfied, LA Sancho
of in accordance with the rules will be duly
issued an Alias Writ of Execution. Accompanied
satisfied. Acknowledging their right to access
by Sereno and his counsel, Atty. Rogelio E.
the records, rather than entitling them to the
Sarsaba, levied a Fuso Truck, which at that time
service of every court order or pleading no
was in the possession of Gasing. The truck was
matter how relevant to their individual claim, will
sold at public auction, with Sereno appearing as
be less cumbersome on the intestate court, the
the highest bidder.
administrator and the heirs of the decedent, while

administratrix Benedicto with the said court. Second, they Meanwhile, Fe Vda. de Te, represented by her
prayed that the intestate court set a deadline for the attorney-in-fact, Faustino Castaeda, filed with the
submission by administratrix Benedicto to submit a verified RTC, a Complaint for recovery of motor vehicle,
and complete inventory of the estate, and upon submission
thereof, order the inheritance tax appraisers of the Bureau of damages with prayer for the delivery of the truck
Internal Revenue to assist in the appraisal of the fair market pendente lite against Sarsaba, Sereno, Lavarez and
value of the same. Third, petitioners moved that the intestate the NLRC alleging that: (1) she is the wife of the
court set a deadline for the submission by the administrator
of her verified annual account, and, upon submission thereof, late Pedro Te, the registered owner of the truck, as
set the date for her examination under oath with respect evidenced by the Official Receipt and Certificate
thereto, with due notice to them and other parties interested of Registration; (2) Gasing merely rented the truck
in the collation, preservation and disposition of the estate
from her; (3) Lavarez erroneously assumed that
Gasing owned the truck because he was, at the
time of the taking,in possession of the same; and
(4) since neither she nor her husband were parties RULING:
to the labor case between Sereno and Gasing, she
1. No. The Order of the RTC denying Sarsaba’s
should not be made to answer for the judgment
Omnibus Motion to Dismiss is not appealable
award, much less be deprived of the truck as a
even on pure questions of law. It is worth
consequence of the levy in execution.
mentioning that the proper procedure in this
case, as enunciated by this Court, is to cite
such interlocutory order as an error in the
Sarsaba filed a Motion to Dismiss[9] on the appeal of the case -- in the event that the RTC
following grounds: (1) respondent has no legal rules in favor of Vda. De Te -- and not to
personality to sue, having no real interests over appeal such interlocutory order. On the other
the property subject of the instant complaint; (2) hand, if the petition is to be treated as a
the allegations in the complaint do not sufficiently petition for review under Rule 45, it would
state that Vda. De Te has cause of action; (3) the likewise fail because the proper subject would
allegations in the complaint do not contain only be judgments or final orders that
sufficient cause of action as against him; and (4) completely dispose of the case.
the complaint is not accompanied by an Affidavit
of Merit and Bond that would entitle the 2. No. In the case before the Court, Sarsaba
respondent to the delivery of the tuck pendente raises the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the
lite. The RTC denied Sarsaba’s Motion to Dismiss. person of Sereno, not in his Motion to
Dismiss or in his Answer but only in his
Omnibus Motion to Dismiss. Having failed to
invoke this ground at the proper time, that is,
Sarsaba filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss the
in a motion to dismiss, Sarsaba cannot raise it
Case on the following grounds:] (1) lack of
now for the first time on appeal.
jurisdiction over one of the principal defendants;
and (2) to discharge respondent's attorney-in-fact
for lack of legal personality to sue. It appeared The court's failure to acquire jurisdiction over
that the respondent, Fe Vda. de Te, died. The one's person is a defense which is personal to
RTC denied for lack of merit. the person claiming it. Failure to serve
summons on Sereno's person will not be a
ISSUES:
cause for the dismissal of the complaint
1. Did Sarsaba avail of the proper remedy in against the other defendants, considering that
questioning the denial by the RTC of his they have been served with copies of the
Omnibus Motion to Dismiss? summons and complaints and have long
2. Since Sereno died before summons was submitted their respective responsive
served on him, should the RTC dismiss the pleadings.
complaint against all the defendants and that
The failure to effect service of summons unto
the same should be filed against his estate?
Patricio Sereno, one of the defendants herein does
3. Should Vda. De Te’s attorney-in-fact,
not render the action DISMISSIBLE, considering
Faustino Castaeda, be discharged as he has no
that the three (3) other defendants, namely, Atty.
more legal personality to sue on behalf of Fe
Rogelio E. Sarsaba, Fulgencio Lavares and the
Vda. de Te, who passed away during the
NLRC, were validly served with summons and the
pendency of the case before the RTC?
case with respect to the answering defendants may jurisdiction over the case subsists despite the
still proceed independently. Be it recalled that the death of the party.
three (3) answering defendants have previously
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint which A perusal of the special power of attorney
was denied by the Court. leads the Court to conclude that it was
constituted for the benefit solely of the
principal or for Fe Vda. de Te. Nowhere
can we infer from the stipulations therein that
3. No. When a party to a pending action dies it was created for the common interest of
and the claim is not extinguished, the Rules of Vda. De Te and her attorney-in-fact. Neither
Court require a substitution of the deceased. was there any mention that it was to benefit a
Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court third person who has accepted the stipulation
enumerates the actions that survived and in his favor. However, the Court does not
may be filed against the decedent's believe that such ground would cause the
representatives as follows: (1) actions to dismissal of the complaint. An action for the
recover real or personal property or an recovery of a personal property, a motor
interest thereon, (2) actions to enforce liens vehicle, is an action that survives pursuant
thereon, and (3) actions to recover damages to Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court.
for an injury to a person or a property. In As such, it is not extinguished by the
such cases, a counsel is obliged to inform the death of a party.
court of the death of his client and give the
name and address of the latter's legal While it may be true as alleged by defendants
representative. The rule on substitution of that with the death of Plaintiff, Fe Vda. de Te,
parties is governed by Section 16,[46] Rule 3 the Special Power of Attorney she executed
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as empowering the Attorney-in-fact, Faustino
amended. Castaeda to sue in her behalf has been
rendered functus officio, however, this Court
In the case before the Court, it appears that believes that the Attorney-in-fact had not lost
Vda. De Te’s counsel did not make any his personality to prosecute this case.
manifestation before the RTC as to her death.
In fact, he had actively participated in the Records reveal that the Attorney-in-fact has
proceedings. Neither had he shown any proof testified long before in behalf of the said plaintiff
that he had been retained by respondent's and more particularly during the state when the
legal representative or any one who succeeded plaintiff was vehemently opposing the dismissal of
her. the complainant. Subsequently thereto, he even
offered documentary evidence in support of the
However, such failure of counsel would not complaint, and this court admitted the same.
lead the Court to invalidate the proceedings When this case was initiated, jurisdiction was
that have long taken place before the RTC. vested upon this Court to try and hear the same to
The Court has repeatedly declared that failure the end. Well-settled is the rule to the point of
of the counsel to comply with his duty to being elementary that once jurisdiction is acquired
inform the court of the death of his client, by this Court, it attaches until the case is decided.
such that no substitution is effected, will not
invalidate the proceedings and the judgment
rendered thereon if the action survives the Thus, the proper remedy here is the
death of such party. The trial court's Substitution of Heirs and not the
 dismissal of this case which would work Procedure provides that it shall not be dismissed
injustice to the plaintiff. but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry
of final judgment and that a favorable judgment
obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced
PURITA ALIPIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF against the estate of a deceased.
APPEALS and ROMEO G. JARING,
G.R. No. 134100, September 29, 2000, The trial court denied petitioner's motion
MENDOZA, J. on the ground that being a party to the sublease
FACTS: Respondent Romeo Jaring was the lessee contract, she could be independently impleaded in
of a 14.5 hectare fishpond in Bataan for a period the suit together with the Manuel spouses and that
of five years ending on September 12, 1990. On the death of her husband merely resulted in his
June 19, 1987, he subleased the fishpond, for the exclusion from the case. The Manuel spouses were
remaining period of his lease, to the spouses declared in default for failure to file an answer.
Placido and Purita Alipio and the spouses RTC rendered decision ordering Alipio and
Bienvenido and Remedios Manuel. The stipulated Manuel spouses to pay the unpaid balance.
amount of rent was P485,600.00, payable in two Petitioner appealed to the CA but such appeal was
installments of P300,000.00 and P185,600.00, with dismissed. It held:
the second installment falling due on June 30,
1989. Each of the four sublessees signed the The rule that an action for recovery
contract. of money, debt or interest thereon
must be dismissed when the
The first installment was duly paid, but of defendant dies before final judgment
the second installment, the sublessees only in the regional trial court, does not
satisfied a portion thereof, leaving an unpaid apply where there are other
balance of P50,600.00. Despite due demand, the defendants against whom the action
sublessees failed to comply with their obligation. should be maintained.
On October 13, 1989, private respondent sued the
Alipio and Manuel spouses for the collection of In citing Climaco v Siy Uy and Imperial Insurance, Inc.
the said amount before the RTC Branch 5, v. David, it ruled that when a case includes more
Dinalupihan, Bataan. In the alternative, he prayed than one defendant, the remaining defendants
for the rescission of the sublease contract should cannot avoid the action by claiming that the death
the defendants fail to pay the balance. of one of the parties to the contract has totally
extinguished their obligation. Also, when the
Petitioner Alipio moved to dismiss the obligation is a solidary one, the creditor may bring
case on the ground that her husband, Placido his action in toto against any of the debtors
Alipio, had passed away obligated in solidum. Thus, if husband and wife
bound themselves jointly and severally, in case of
on December 1, 1988. She based her action on
his death, her liability is independent of and
Rule 3, Sec. 21 of the 1964 Rules of Court which
separate from her husband's; she may be sued for
then provided that "when the action is for
the whole debt and it would be error to hold that
recovery of money, debt or interest thereon, and
the claim against her as well as the claim against
the defendant dies before final judgment in the
her husband should be made in the decedent's
Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be
estate.
prosecuted in the manner especially provided in
these rules." This provision has been amended so ISSUE: Can the creditor sue the surviving spouse
that now Rule 3, Sec. 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil of a decedent in an ordinary proceeding for the
collection of a sum of money chargeable against the settlement of estate proceedings. Indeed, the
the conjugal partnership? surviving spouse is not even a de facto
administrator such that conveyances made by him
RULING: NO. We hold that a creditor cannot of any property belonging to the partnership prior
sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an to the liquidation of the mass of conjugal
ordinary proceeding for the collection of a partnership property is void. In the recent case of
sum of money chargeable against the conjugal Ventura v. Militant, it was held that where a
partnership and that the proper remedy is for complaint is brought against the surviving spouse
him to file a claim in the settlement of estate for the recovery of an indebtedness chargeable
of the decedent. against said conjugal [partnership], any judgment
obtained thereby is void. The proper action
First, it should be noted that since the should be in the form of a claim to be filed in the
case was filed more than ten months after the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased
husband died, the case thus falls outside of the spouse.
ambit of Rule 3, Sec. 21 which deals with
dismissals of collection suits because of the death In many cases as in the instant one, even
of the defendant during the pendency of the case. after the death of one of the spouses, there is no
As already noted, Rule 3, Sec. 20 of the 1997 liquidation of the conjugal partnership. This does
Rules of Civil Procedure now provides that the not mean, however, that the conjugal partnership
case will be allowed to continue until entry of final continues. And private respondent cannot be said
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the to have no remedy. Under Sec. 6, Rule 78 of the
plaintiff therein will then be enforced in the Revised Rules of Court, he may apply in court for
manner especially provided in the Rules for letters of administration in his capacity as a
prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased principal creditor of the deceased . . . if after thirty
person. (30) days from his death, petitioner failed to apply
for administration or request that administration
Under the law, the Alipios' obligation be granted to some other person.14 The cases
(and also that of the Manuels) is one which is relied upon by the Court of Appeals in support of
chargeable against their conjugal partnership. its ruling, namely, Climaco v. Siy Uy and Imperial
When petitioner's husband died, their conjugal Insurance, Inc. v. David, are based on different sets
partnership was automatically dissolved and debts of facts. In Climaco, the defendants, Carlos Siy Uy
chargeable against it are to be paid in the and Manuel Co, were sued for damages for
settlement of estate proceedings in accordance malicious prosecution. Thus, apart from the fact
with Rule 73, Sec. 2. the claim was not against any conjugal partnership,
it was one which does not survive the death of
As held in al a v. Tanedo, after the death
defendant Uy, which merely resulted in the
of either of the spouses, no complaint for the
dismissal of the case as to him but not as to the
collection of indebtedness chargeable against the
remaining defendant Manuel Co.
conjugal partnership can be brought against the
surviving spouse. Instead, the claim must be made With regard to the case of Imperial, the
in the proceedings for the liquidation and spouses therein jointly and severally executed an
settlement of the conjugal property. The reason indemnity agreement which became the basis of a
for this is that upon the death of one spouse, the collection suit filed against the wife after her
powers of administration of the surviving spouse husband had died. For this reason, the Court ruled
ceases and is passed to the administrator that since the spouses' liability was solidary, the
appointed by the court having jurisdiction over
surviving spouse could be independently sued in The Civil Code provides that if from the law or
an ordinary action for the enforcement of the the nature or the wording of the obligation the
entire obligation. It must be noted that for contrary does not appear, an obligation is
marriages governed by the rules of conjugal presumed to be only joint. Private respondent
partnership of gains, an obligation entered into by does not cite any provision of law which provides
the husband and wife is chargeable against their that when there are two or more lessees, or in this
conjugal partnership and it is the partnership case, sublessees, the latter's obligation to pay the
which is primarily bound for its repayment. Thus, rent is solidary, except when the lessees or
when the spouses are sued for the enforcement of sublessees refuse to vacate the leased property
an obligation entered into by them, they are being after the expiration of the lease period and despite
impleaded in their capacity as representatives of due demands by the lessor. In the latter case, they
the conjugal partnership and not as independent can be held jointly and severally liable to pay for
debtors such that the concept of joint or solidary the use of the property. The basis of their solidary
liability, as between them, does not apply. liability is not the contract of lease or sublease but
However, since the nature of the obligation the fact that they have become joint tortfeasors. In
involved in this case, as will be discussed later, is the case at bar, there is no allegation that the
not solidary but rather merely joint, making sublessees refused to vacate the fishpond after the
Imperial still inapplicable to this case. expiration of the term of the sublease. Indeed, the
unpaid balance sought to be collected by private
From the foregoing, it is clear that private respondent in his collection suit became due on
respondent cannot maintain the present suit June 30, 1989, long before the sublease expired on
against petitioner. Rather, his remedy is to file a September 12, 1990. Neither does petitioner
claim against the Alipios in the proceeding for the contend that it is the nature of lease that when
settlement of the estate of petitioner's husband or, there are more than two lessees or sublessees their
if none has been commenced, he can file a liability is solidary. Clearly, the liability of the
petition either for the issuance of letters of sublessees is merely joint.
administration or for the allowance of will,
depending on whether petitioner's husband died
intestate or testate. Private respondent cannot PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
short-circuit this procedure by lumping his claim appellee, vs. ROGELIO BAYOTAS Y
against the Alipios with those against the Manuels CORDOVA, accused-appellant. [G.R. No.
considering that, aside from petitioner's lack of 102007 | 1994-09-02; ROMERO, J.]
authority to represent their conjugal estate, the
inventory of the Alipios' conjugal property is KEY DOCTRINE.
necessary before any claim chargeable against it If the accused dies pending appeal of his
can be paid. Needless to say, such power conviction, the civil liability based SOLELY on
exclusively pertains to the court having the criminal liability is extinguished. But if the
jurisdiction over the settlement of the decedent’s civil liability is based on law, contract, quasi-
estate and not to any other court. contract and quasi-delict, it survives the death of
the accused. A separate civil action may be
The trial court ordered petitioner and the
enforced: (1) against the ESTATE of the accused
Manuel spouses to pay private respondent the
in case of a contract; or (2) against the
unpaid balance of the agreed rent in the amount
EXECUTOR/ADMINISTRATOR in case of
of P50,600.00 without specifying whether the
law, quasi-contract and quasi-delict.
amount is to be paid by them jointly or solidarily.
FACTS.
The RTC of Roxas City convicted
Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova with Rape. Pending RICARDO SILVERIO, JR. v. CA and NELIA
appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on February SILVERIO-DEE
4, 1992 at the National Bilibid Hospital due to
Doctrine:
cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic
It must be borne in mind that until the estate is
encephalopathy secondary to hepato-carcinoma
partitioned, each heir only has an inchoate right to the
gastric malingering. Consequently, the Supreme
properties of the estate, such that no heir may lay claim on
Court dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal,
a particular property. Once an action for the settlement of
and required the Solicitor General to file its
an estate is filed with the court, the properties included
comment with regard to Bayotas' civil liability
therein are under the control of the intestate court. And not
arising from his commission of the offense
even the administrator may take possession of any property
charged.
that is part of the estate without the prior authority of the
Court.
ISSUE.
Is the civil liability of Bayotas Facts:
extinguished by his death?
The instant controversy stemmed from the
RULING. settlement of estate of the deceased Beatriz
Yes, if the civil liability is based solely on Silverio. After her death, her surviving spouse,
his criminal liability. Article 89 of the Revised Ricardo Silverio, Sr., filed an intestate proceeding
Penal Code provides that the death of the convict: for the settlement of her estate. Ricardo Silverio,
(1) criminal liability is TOTALLY extinguished as Jr. filed a petition to remove Ricardo C. Silverio,
to his PERSONAL liabilities; (2) as to his Sr. as the administrator of the subject estate.
PECUNIARY penalties, his liability is Edmundo S. Silverio also filed a
extinguished ONLY when the death of the comment/opposition for the removal of Ricardo
offended occurs before final judgment. In the C. Silverio, Sr. as administrator of the estate and
instant case, Bayotas died before final judgment. for the appointment of a new administrator.
Ordinary money claims under Section 21,
RTC issued an Order granting the petition and
Rule III must be viewed in the light of Section 5,
removing Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator of
Rule 86 involving claims against the estate. The
the estate, while appointing Ricardo Silverio, Jr. as
latter provides an EXCLUSIVE
the new administrator.
ENUMERATION of what claims can be filed
against the estate, to wit: (1) funeral expenses; (2) Nelia S. Silverio-Dee filed a Motion for
expenses for the last illness; (3) judgments for Reconsideration of the Order.
money; and (4) claims arising from contracts,
express or implied. If the obligation arose from Then, Ricardo Silverio Jr. filed an Urgent Motion
other sources—law, quasi-contract and quasi- for an Order Prohibiting Any Person to
delict—it is Section, Rule 87 that applies where Occupy/Stay/Use Real Estate Properties
the action is brought against the Involved in the Intestate Estate of the Late
Executor/Administrator. Beatriz Silverio, Without Authority from this
Honorable Court.

18. DORONIO v. HEIRS OF DORONIO RTC issued an Omnibus Order denying private
(pdf) respondents motion for reconsideration. The
Omnibus Order also directed Nelia S. Silverio-
Dee to vacate the property at No. 3, lay claim on a particular property. In Alejandrino v.
Intsia, Forbes Park, Makati City within fifteen (15) Court of Appeals, we succinctly ruled:
days from receipt of the order.
Art. 1078 of the Civil Code provides
Notably, the RTC in its Order also recalled its that where there are two or more heirs,
previous order granting Ricardo Silverio, Jr. with the whole estate of the decedent is,
letters of administration over the intestate estate before partition, owned in common by
of Beatriz Silverio and reinstating Ricardo Silverio, such heirs, subject to the payment of
Sr. as the administrator. the debts of the deceased. Under a co-
ownership, the ownership of an
However, RTC further issued a writ of execution undivided thing or right belongs to
for the enforcement of the Order against private different persons. Each co-owner of
respondent to vacate the premises of the property property which is held pro indiviso
located at No. 3, Intsia, Forbes Park, Makati City. exercises his rights over the whole
The writ of execution was later issued and a property and may use and enjoy the
Notice to Vacate was issued ordering private same with no other limitation than that
respondent to leave the premises of the subject he shall not injure the interests of his
property within ten (10) days. co-owners. The underlying rationale
is that until a division is made, the
Consequently, private respondent filed a Petition
respective share of each cannot be
for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Prayer for
determined and every co-owner
TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction) with the
exercises, together with his co-
CA.
participants, joint ownership over
CA issued the assailed Resolution granting the the pro indiviso property, in
prayer for the issuance of a TRO and eventually addition to his use and enjoyment
annulled the RTC's writ of execution and notice to of the same.
vacate.
Although the right of an heir over the
Issue: whether CA seriously erred in annulling the property of the decedent is inchoate as
Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate against long as the estate has not been fully
private respondent? settled and partitioned, the law allows a
co-owner to exercise rights of
Held: ownership over such inchoate right.
Thus, the Civil Code provides:
Court ruled in the affirmative.
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the
In the instant case, Nelia Silverio-Dee appealed
full ownership of his part and of the fruits
the May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC on the
and benefits pertaining thereto, and he
ground that it ordered her to vacate the premises
may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage
of the property located at No. 3 Intsia
it, and even substitute another person in
Road, Forbes Park, Makati City. On that aspect
its enjoyment, except when personal
the order is not a final determination of the case
rights are involved. But the effect of the
or of the issue of distribution of the shares of the
alienation or the mortgage, with
heirs in the estate or their rights therein. It must
respect to the co-owners, shall be limited
be borne in mind that until the estate is
to the portion which may be allotted to
partitioned, each heir only has an inchoate right to
him in the division upon the termination
the properties of the estate, such that no heir may
of the co-ownership. (Emphasis lost her remedy of appeal from the May 31, 2005
supplied.) Order of the RTC.

Additionally, the above provision must be viewed

in the context that the subject property is part of
an estate and subject to intestate proceedings REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
before the courts. It is, thus, relevant to note represented by the REGISTER OF DEEDS
that in Rule 84, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court, OF PASAY CITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
the administrator may only deliver properties APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER 3RD
of the estate to the heirs upon order of the DIVISION) AND AMADA H. SOLANO,
Court. Similarly, under Rule 90, Sec. 1 of the assisted by her husband ROMEO
Rules of Court, the properties of the estate SOLANO, respondents.
shall only be distributed after the payment of
G.R. No. 143483, January 31, 2002, J. Bellosillo
the debts, funeral charges, and other expenses
against the estate, except when authorized by For more than three (3) decades (from 1952 to
the Court. 1985) Amada Solano served as the all-around
personal domestic helper of the late Elizabeth
Verily, once an action for the settlement of an
Hankins, a widow and a French national. During
estate is filed with the court, the properties
Ms. Hankins' lifetime and most especially during
included therein are under the control of the
the waning years of her life, respondent Solano
intestate court. And not even the
was her faithful girl Friday and a constant
administrator may take possession of any
companion since no close relative was available to
property that is part of the estate without the
tend to her needs.
prior authority of the Court.
In recognition of Solano's faithful and dedicated
In the instant case, the purported authority of
service, Ms. Hankins executed in her favor two (2)
Nelia Silverio-Dee, which she allegedly secured
deeds of donation involving two (2) parcels of
from Ricardo Silverio, Sr., was never approved by
land. Private respondent alleged that she
the probate court. She, therefore, never had any
misplaced the deeds of donation and were
real interest in the specific property located at No.
nowhere to be found. While the deeds of donation
3 Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati City. As such,
were missing, the Republic filed a petition for the
the May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC must be
escheat of the estate of Hankins before the RTC
considered as interlocutory and, therefore, not
of Pasay City. During the proceedings, a motion
subject to an appeal.
for intervention was filed by Romeo Solano,
Thus, private respondent employed the wrong spouse of Amada, and one Gaudencio Regosa, but
mode of appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the motion was denied for the reason that "they
the RTC. Hence, for employing the improper miserably failed to show valid claim or right to the
mode of appeal, the case should have been properties in question." Since it was established
dismissed. that there were no known heirs and persons
entitled to the properties of decedent Hankins, the
The implication of such improper appeal is that lower court escheated the estate of the decedent in
the notice of appeal did not toll the reglementary favor of petitioner Republic of the Philippines.
period for the filing of a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65, the proper remedy in the instant In the meantime, private respondent claimed that
case. This means that private respondent has now she accidentally found the deeds of donation she
had been looking for a long time. Amada Solano
filed on 28 January 1997 a petition before the included as part of the estate of the said decedent
Court of Appeals for the annulment of the lower as she is the owner thereof by virtue of the deeds
court's decision alleging, among others, that- of donation in her favor.

13.1. The deceased Elizabeth Hankins Issue:

having donated the subject properties to Did RTC have jurisdiction when it escheated the
the petitioner in 1983 and 1984, these properties in favor of Pasay City government and
properties did not and could not form did the 5-year statute of limitations within which
part of her estate when she died on to file claims as set forth in Rule 91 set in.
September 20, 1985. Consequently, they
could not validly be escheated to the
Pasay City Government; Held:
Yes. Escheat is a proceeding, unlike that of
13.2. Even assuming arguendo that the
succession or assignment, whereby the state, by
properties could be subject of escheat
virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claims the
proceedings, the decision is still legally
real or personal property of a person who dies
infirm for escheating the properties to an
intestate leaving no heir. In the absence of a lawful
entity, the Pasay City Government, which
owner, a property is claimed by the state to
is not authorized by law to be the
forestall an open "invitation to self-service by the
recipient thereof. The property should
first comers." Since escheat is one of the incidents
have been escheated in favor of the
of sovereignty, the state may, and usually does,
Republic of the Philippines under Rule
prescribe the conditions and limits the time within
91, Section 1 of the New Rules of Court
which a claim to such property may be made. The
procedure by which the escheated property may
The CA gave due course to the petition for
be recovered is generally prescribed by statue, and
annulment of judgment. In upholding the theory
a time limit is imposed within which such action
of Solano, the Appeals Court ruled that - Thus
must be brought.
whether or not the properties in question are no
longer part of the estate of the deceased Hankins
In this jurisdiction, a claimant to an escheated
at the time of her death; and, whether or not the
property must file his claim "within five (5) years
alleged donations are valid are issues in the
from the date of such judgment, such person shall
present petition for annulment which can be
have possession of and title to the same, or if sold,
resolved only after a full blown trial x x x x
the municipality or city shall be accountable to
him for the proceeds, after deducting the estate;
It is for the same reason that respondent’s
but a claim not made shall be barred forever." The
espousal of the statute of limitations against herein
5-year period is not a device capriciously
petition for annulment cannot prosper at this
conjured by the state to defraud any claimant;
stage of the proceedings. Indeed, Section 4, Rule
on the contrary, it is decidedly prescribed to
91 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly
encourage would-be claimants to be
provides that a person entitled to the estate must
punctilious in asserting their claims,
file his claim with the court a quo within five (5)
otherwise they may lose them forever in a final
years from the date of said judgment. However, it
judgment.
is clear to this Court that herein petitioner is not
claiming anything from the estate of the deceased
In the instant petition, the escheat judgment was
at the time of her death; rather she is claiming that
handed down by the lower court as early as 27
the subject parcels of land should not have been
June 1989 but it was only on 28 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. Where a person comes into an
escheat proceeding as a claimant, the burden is on
such intervenor to establish his title to the
property and his right to intervene. A fortiori, 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 private
respondent Solano, the same still remained, at
least before the escheat, part of the estate of the
decedent and the lower court was right not to
assume otherwise. The CA therefore cannot
perfunctorily presuppose that the subject
properties were no longer part of the decedent's
estate at the time the lower court handed down its
decision on the strength of a belated allegation
that the same had previously been disposed of by
the owner.

The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the

RTC Pasay City, dated 27 June 1989,
is REINSTATED.