TABLE OF CONTENTS General Provisions; Rules of Court [Section 3, Rule 1; Sections 2, 16, Rule 3]; Section 119, CA 141; Arts. 1306, 1315 Rule 1, Section 3 - Cases governed. Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings… (a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. X X X..(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. Rule 3, Section 2 - Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Sec 119 of CA 141 - Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper , shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of 5 years from date of the conveyance Art. 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. Limos v. Odones GR # 186979, August A request for admission is not intended to 11 2010 merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting pArty’s 1 pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request, whose purpose is to establish said pArty’s cause of action or defense. Reyes v. Enriquez GR # 162956, April Declaration of heirship should first be filed 10 1998 as a special proceeding before complaint 2 for reconveyance and partition is filed in ordinary court Ventura vs. Militante GR# 63145, Oct. 5 A dead person nor his estate cannot be a 1999 party plaintiff in a court action. Complaint is brought against the surviving spouse for the recovery of an indebtedness 3 chargeable against said conjugal property, any judgment obtained thereby is void. The proper action should be in the form of a claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings. Edgardo Cruz vs. GR# 173292, Sept. 1 Heirs have acquired interest in the Oswaldo Cruz 2010 properties in litigation and became pArties 4 in interest in the case. Complaint filed by deceased can survive and substituted by heirs. Sumaljag v. Literato GR# 149787, June "legal representatives" refer to those 18 2008 authorized by law - the administrator, executor or guardian who, under the rule 5 on settlement of estate of deceased persons, is constituted to take over the estate of the deceased. DBP v. Gagarani GR# 172248, Sept. 17 Daughter and son-in-law of the patentees 2008 have the right to repurchase the property 6 because this would be "more in keeping with the spirit of the law. Balus v. Balus GR# 168970, Jan. 15 Deceased who lost ownership of the subject 2010 property during his lifetime, cannot pass 7 into the hands of compulsory heirs a parcel of land which is no longer formed part of his estate. 8 Arellano vs. Pascual GR# 189776, Dec. Rule on collation is applicable only when 15 2010 there is compulsory heir. Siblings are not compulsory heirs. Decedent not having left any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime, he was at liberty to donate all his properties, even if nothing was left for his

Tambago A. 11 Attestation and acknowledgment are cons. Article 2010. Arriola v. 5281. Barcena GR # L-41715. CA GR#122880. 12. this did not satisfy Art 806. 28 Family Home is shielded from immediate 15 2008 partition. 25 Guerrero v.siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. Aug. April. The Appeals conveyance is not a will because in a will. a person disposes of his property. Jan. Aug. Alvarez v. Honrado AM No. 2007 Notary public who was acting outside the place of his commission. Estate Taxation. Azuela v. 11 Recognition as heir. 11 Without the settlement of Anastacia's Makati. Feb. 12. Article 809 Suroza vs. Oscar Reyes v. and whether all 2006 persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other must substantially 23 appear in the attestation clause. participation in the Enterprises 2009 settlement of estate and registration in the 17 books of the corporation is needed before an heir acquire shares of decedent Testamentary Succession. Aluad GR# 176943. CA Corp. reading and 21 translation into Filipino language is not enough. 29 Survivorship agreement is valid. there can be no registration of the transfer Puno v. Bonilla vs. Neither is the agreement a donation inter vivos because it takes effect after death. Article 1378 Vitug vs. 13 A donation which purports to be one inter vivos but withholds from the donee the right 19 to dispose of the donated property during the donor's lifetime is in truth one mortis causa. Dec. IAC GR# 68053. the bank account is part of the conjugal funds. 1995 7 Ownership and real rights are acquired only pursuant to a legal mode or process. Aluad v. 1981 known to the testator. Echavez vs. June 18 Deceased’s claim was transmitted to heris 14 upon his death. In this 18 case. Without the pArtition and distribution. there can be no definite pArtition 16 and distribution of the estate to the heirs. Notarial/Formal/Ordinary Will. predecessor-in-interest because they have 2000 inherited the property subject to the liability affecting their common ancestor Dec 10 DKC Holdings vs. 17. Oct. Donation although worded as inter vivos is 2008 considered as mortis causa when the donor 20 do not intend to transfer ownership during his lifetime. Sicad vs. May 7 Hereditary estates are always liable in 13 1990 their totality for the payments of the debts of the estate. April. Acap vs. Wills In General. A stranger or non co-heir cannot conclusively claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver document Heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by their GR# 118248. Sept. Will should be executed in a language 19. CA GR# 125888. being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings Lee v. CA 9 GR# 118114. 17. Lawyer will be guilty of professional 24 2008 misconduct for notarizing a spurious will. Supplement Yaptinchay Rosario 12 Del GR# 124320. Puno GR# 177066. Court of GR# 82027. respectively) indicates that the law contemplates two distinct acts that serve different purposes. Mar. Oct. Arriola GR# 177703. the total number of pages. 5. Bihis GR#174144. RTC GR# 165744. 2026-CFI. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of v. April. March 2 Declaration of heirship can be made only in 1999 a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. . 2010 embodied in two separate provisions of the 22 CC (Arts 805 and 806. No.C. Rodrigo reyes 2008 estate. Dozen GR# 192916.

Celada v. 2008 - 26 27 Javellana Ledesma Cruz vs. Nov.his jurisdiction. and year of its execution. mere disinheritance instrument. GR# 76714. 1985 31 Labrador vs. Reyes 37 GR# 83843-44. the disinheritance of Alfredo. when taken into account. 2011 . Sept. In holographic will. Sept. 1994 GR # 169144. month. does not affect the validity of the codicil. L-26615. 26. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. Aranza 36 Seangio v. 27. nonetheless. Aug. The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. substitution of original heir not authenticated by full signature will void the contract and original will cannot be probated. Jan. when there is no appearance of fraud. 1999 No. undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the will is established. 1993 Testator may be admitted to be physically weak but it does not necessarily follow that she was not of sound mind. WN the notary signed the certification of acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses. may only defeat the testator’s will. conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law although it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter's property. the will was NOT duly executed. Absence of proof that it was read to the deceased twice. Calugay 35 Rodelas vs. formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which. “date’ in a holographic will should include the day. June 30. April 30. April. L-7179. Gaviola 30 No. June. 1955 No. 1970 GR # 74695. 28. given efficacy to the seeming change of mind of testator. 15. 1973 28 Garcia vs.Error in the number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will. the object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud. Nov. However. CA Codoy vs. lack of authentication on the alterations will only result in disallowance of such changes. 7. L-32213. Abena GR# 145545. . 28. 1982 GR # 140371-72. notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. 1994 GR# 123486. Sept. probate should be allowed based on principle of substantial compliance. 2006 Probate Vda. De Jesus No. Villasor vs. Dec. is an act of disposition in itself. CA 32 Kalaw vs. 30. L-58509. 1990 No. Jan. Vasquez 29 Alvarado vs. De Perez vs. Relova (SC is wrong) 33 Ajero vs. 14. Reading contents of will aloud with the witnesses following the reading is substantial compliance. 38 Tolete 39 Palaganas Palaganas v. 1984 34 GR# 106720. reprobate of a will shall "cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction even if not yet probated in Holographic Will Roxas vs. 12. L-38338. No. 5. to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court. 26. L-40207. Generally. bad faith. June 2.

the presumption 43 is. or be paged. L 76464. Seangio v. Dec. tearing.the place where it is executed. Lina 40 GR # 141634. Duncan. Where a will which cannot be found is 1927 shown to have been in the possession of the testator. Preterition. however. Heirs of Sandejas vs. Disallowance of Wills Dorotheo vs. Institution of the sister as universal heir. 25. 12. GR# 108581. Gago vs. Mamuyac. Molo vs. Institution to an heir believed to be a Datu 1967 daughter who happened to be not is still 47 valid. 50 1966 preteriting parents is void. Institution of Heirs Reyes vs. 29. May. 2001 Reference to judicial approval. in the absence of other competent evidence. the intentions of the testatrix had been Buenaventura 22. 28. 1966 fulfilled. Reyes GR # 14037172. Feb. it does not necessarily follow that an 1999 extrinsically valid last will and testament is 46 always intrinsically valid. vs. when last seen. Republication and Revival of Wills. Theres animus but no corpus. L 26317. L 17714. Jan. Jan. Disinhertance Aznar vs. Codicils and Incorporation by Reference. predicated on the testator' intention not to die intestate Diaz vs. cannot adversely affect the substantive rights of heirs to dispose of their own pro indiviso shares in the co-heirship or coownership. June 23. 29. No. De Leon. Supplement Abangan Abangan will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses and the second contains only the attestation clause 41 and is signed also at the bottom by the three witnesses. A wife is not a compulsory heir in the direct line so she cannot be preterited. Attestation clause that does not state that 1993 witnesses attest and subscribe in the 41 presence of the testator and of one another will inviolate the will. GR # 13431. 8. No. or cancelling the will be carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction. 2006 Santos vs. No. 27. May. Nov. No. See above 51 27. Molo. a sufficient revocation. GR # L 24365. 42 obliterating. Nuguid GR # L 23445. Sept. Testator is at liberty to assign the free portion of his estate to whomsoever he chose. L 2538. in itself. her will had been admitted and 52 allowed probate within a reasonably short period. June 30. destruction of a will animo revocandi 45 1922 constitutes. Nov. Nuguid vs. CA. that the same was cancelled or destroyed. it is not necessary that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator and the witnesses. 31. 21. Unlawful provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect. Baretto GR # L17818. 1988 to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning. GR # L 22797. 1919 . Renvoi Doctrine 48 1966 Acain vs. Feb. Invalidity of 2nd will which revoked 1st will 1951 can still give effect to 1st will under the 44 principle of “dependent relative revocation”. Revocation [Wills & Testamentary Dispositions] Adriana Maloto vs. and the disposition of her property can now be effected. Oct. Caneda vs. IAC GR # L 72706. CA GR# 103554. Sept. adopted child was preterited but not the 48 1987 wife. 5. The intention CA.

27952. Conditional & Term Disposition Palacios vs. 1959 GR# 118449. automatically and by operation of law. CA (bad case) – did not see 62 that it was a case of reserve troncal) Disinheritance Seangio v. Piedad. Jan. Director 61 Vizconde v. Reyes 63 GR #L-10701. 11. 1981 Cano vs. reside to reservista while he lives. mere estrangement not being a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse. Sept. While it is true that the adopted child shall 1992 be deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same right as the 65 latter. Dec. the rule of proximity. GR# 140975. Right of Representation (See also Domestic Adoption Act) Sayson vs. March 8. 2000 GR# L-27860. Jan. 30. Feb. except only in the case of nephews and nieces of the decedent concurring with their uncles or 64 aunts. 1992 beyond one degree from the heir originaly 53 instituted. the owner of the reservable property." PCIB vs. CFI 60 GR # L-6878. CA. Jan. 2000 See above Among collateral relatives. 1992 a person's love descends first to his children and grandchildren before it ascends to his parents and thereafter spreads among his . 23.Substitution of Heirs. Reservista's right of ownership is registrable. June 29. Upon the death of the reservista. error to require a son-in-law of the decedent to be included in the collation as he is not a compulsory heir Legitime Francisco 56 Francisco-Alfonso Capitle v. GR# 8922425. to the brothers and sisters of the wife as seen in his authority to sell the property Without the obligation clearly imposing upon the first heir the preservation of the property and its transmission to the second heir. 13. Mar. 8. it was then the reservee’s buyer who would acquire absolute ownership. 29. Since it was the reservee who survived the reservor. 1913 GR #L-12957. Sablan 58 Sienes vs. Elbambuena and Olar vs. 1974 no fideicommissary substitution bec. 27. Nov. even though under a condition. Escolin 54 Rabadilla vs. these rights do not include the right of representation Order of Intestate Succession Descending Direct Line 66 Sayson vs. 2001 GR# 169193. reservable properties should be inherited by all the nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus. 24. CA. 960-1014] General Provision Bagunu vs. 2006 Legal or Intestate Succession [Arts. is applicable The right of representation does not apply to "others collateral relatives within the fifth civil degree”. fideicommissary substitution should not go 15. 16. Esparcia 59 Gonzales vs. Ramirez GR # L. She could not select the reservees to whom the reservable property should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share therein. 1998 GR# 140371-72. Nov. May 19. Court of Appeals 55 GR# 113725. the legal title and dominion. Estranged wife remained to be a legal heir. 1961 March GR #L-34395. 23. 2006 57 Reserva Edroso vs. there is no fideicommissary substitution compulsory heir can not be deprived of her share in the estate save by disinheritance as prescribed by law. there was no obligation upon the husband to preserve and transmit the prop. GR# 138774. GR# 89224-25. Vulgar & Fideicommissary Substitution. Feb. the reservatario nearest to the prepositus becomes.

CA GR# 118449. 2000 as legitimes are not prejudiced & they should be collated in the determination of legitimes Nazareno vs. Tarlac vs. Collateral Relatives Heirs of Uriarte vs. 30. Oct. 1998 Jan. 30. There is also an implied trust when a 18. 1978 June an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. April. 1987 Feb. 1998 improper for. 1990 GR # 183053. CA GR# 109972. 31. CA GR# 106401. April In order to be capacitated to inherit. when decedent have an illegitimate child. Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Succession [Arts. Ascending Direct Line Illegitimate Children Corpus vs. at the least. Sept. – this is subject to collation 81 Vizconde vs. 2007 GR# 116775. 2002 . GR # L-22469. 22.collateral relatives. 1979 devisee or legatee must be living at the 77 Rigor moment the succession opens. 1998 Private respondent's belated assertion of her right over the escheated properties militates against recovery. Brothers & sisters are precluded from inheriting the estate of their brother. 78 15. 2010 71 Surviving Spouse Verdad vs. CA GR# 138842. he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or only a part thereof. Sept. Collation of the Parañaque property is 11. to repeat. Feb. 29. Oct. when it is proper Acceptance and Repudiation of Inheritance Guy v. CA 68 Diaz vs. The attendant facts and circumstances of this case necessitate. by right of representation. partition inter vivos may be done for as long 79 29. Jan. claim a share of the estate left by the legitimate relatives left by his father The right of representation is not available to illegitimate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent. CA 74 Gonzales vs. 2006 Executors and Administrators. IAC 68 70 Diaz vs. CA GR# 163707. Feb. CA 72 73 Cabales v. a joint administration by both respondent and petitioner. even if the latter is an illegitimate child. Collation & Donation [725-773]. 31. making her a co-owner in the inheritance of his mother-in-law mother who if duly authorized by the courts. 1015 -1105] Right of Accretion Parish Priest of GR# L-22036. 28. Oct. See also Art. could validly sell his share in the property The determination of whether the relationship is of the full or half-blood is important only to determine the extent of the share of the survivors. Order of preference is not absolute in the designation of administrator. 21. CA 76 GR# 117740. 2000 donation is made to a person but it appears that although the legal estate is transmitted 80 to the donee. Aug. the heir. since being halfblood is immaterial to determine his right to the inheritance as a 3rd degree relative. 1983 GR #L-66574. June 16. 1996 GR# 162421. except in case of representation. nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child An illegitimate cannot. 17. CA 75 The State Republic vs. 1448 NCC Zaragoza vs. 23. Suntay GR #L-51263. collation covers only properties gratuitously given by the GR# 143483. Corpus 67 Leonardo vs. Victoria. Selection of an administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. IAC Suntay v. GR #L-66574. A right of redemption arose in favor of a daughter-in-law who was survived by his husband.

NO TRUST IS IMPLIED BY LAW. Sept. Sept. Sept. GR# 168660/ June testatrix’s large landholdings cannot be Rodriguez 30. private deed of sale does not equate to an 2007 oral partition by an act inter vivos. There is no co-ownership where portion 2. Cebu. is approximately 369 sq. See above 87 29. as husband and daughter of Anacleto's daughter. CA GR# 119730. for P200. July Poverty is not a justification for delaying a 90 29. are not required to submit the property for judicial 86 administration. vs. ild. 2008 the price of the sale. sold 200 sq. it being disputably presumed that 82 there is a gift in favor of the child. Zaragoza vs. When Spouses Fernandez. Pascual GR # 189776. his heirs. CA GR# 115181. Dec. CA GR# 178933.00 to Spouses Dionisio and Catalina Fernandez (Spouses Fernandez). m. 2009 has an inchoate right to the properties of the 85 estate. Rule on collation is applicable only when 15. out of the 1051 sq. Andres GR # 166236. m. 2000 Arrogante v. CA GR# 106401. 2010 there is compulsory heir. the subject property. here there is no proof that the properties are really donated to the deceased son. such that no heir may lay claim on a particular property. Besides. Deliarte GR# 152132. However. 1999 owned is correctly determined and identifiable. legitimate or illegitimate. Partition and Distribution of the Estate. even if nothing was left for his siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. On the other hand respondents. Until the estate is partitioned. On June 19. m. 2008 Facts: Petitioners claim to be the lawful heirs of Dionisia Reyes who co-owned the subject parcel of land located in Talisay. (2) Affidavit by .decedent during his lifetime to his compulsory heirs Ty v. March When a person dies without leaving pending 31. though not technically 84 described. Alfonso v.R. 1957 stating that his share in Lot No. 1851. July 24. Rescission 0061nd Nullity of Partition Noceda vs. No. Silverio v. April 10. each heir only 16. tried to register their share in the subject land.000. Decedent not having left 83 any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime. 2009 subjected indefinitely to a trust because the 89 ownership thereof would then effectively remain with her even in the afterlife. 162956. he was at liberty to donate all his properties. 2000 obligations. April. Avelino vs. Siblings are not compulsory heirs. nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by the court. Ty GR# 165696. Effect of Partition. Arellano v. of one paying 30. or that said portions are still embraced in one and the same certificate of title does not make said portions less determinable or identifiable. they discovered that certain documents prevent them from doing so: (1) Affidavit by Anacleto Cabrera dated March 16. 2010 case Reyes vs Enriquez G. 88 partition of property representing future inheritance cannot be made effective during the lifetime of its owner Orendain Jr. with Anacleto Cabrera. claim to be the heirs of Anacleto Cabrera. 1999. also their co-respondents in this case. petitioners Peter and Deborah Ann Enriquez..

Whenpetitioner. he insisted.55 sq. private respondent admitted. The Rules of Court provide that only a real party in interest is allowed to prosecute and defend an action in court. In his amended complaint. A deceased person does nothave such legal entity as is necessary to bring actionso much so that a motion to substitute cannot lie andshould be denied by the court. he mayapply in court for letters of administration in his capacity asa principal creditor of the deceased Carlos Ngo if after thirty (30) days from his death. 63145. the conjugalpartnership terminates upon the death of either spouse. as correctly argued by petitioner. subordinate or consequential interest.). Under Sec. The respondents have yet to substantiate their claim as the legal heirs of Anacleto Cabrera who are. Juan Reyes. Ruling: Yes. could only be paid after an inventory is madein the appropriate testate or intestate proceeding. This must take precedence over the action for reconveyance. [G. refused.. since an estate is not a legal entity. But amendmentscannot be allowed so as to confer jurisdiction upon a courtthat never acquired it in the first place.It is true that amendments to pleadings are liberallyallowed in furtherance of justice. private respondent'scounsel manifested that he is poised to “amend thecomplaint in order to state the correct party defendant thathe intends to sue in this case”. When it is evidentthat the court has no jurisdiction over the person and thesubject matter and that the pleading is so fatally defectiveas not to be susceptible of amendment. Where a complaint isbrought against the surviving spouse for the recovery of anindebtedness chargeable against said conjugal property.Moreover. 1851. or that to permitsuch amendment would radically alter the theory and thenature of the action. 1999] VENTURA vs.It is clear that the original complaint of privaterespondent against the estate of Carlos Ngo was a suitagainst Carlos Ngo himself who was already dead atthe time of the filing of said complaint. then the court should refuse theamendment of the defective pleading and order thedismissal of the case.In many cases as in the instant one. to be considered a real interest. Ventura who is ostensiblytaking care of the properties/estate of deceased CarlosNgo. Petitioner moved to dismiss thesame on the ground that the defendant as named inthe complaint had no legal personality. CRUZ. RULING: We grant the petition. in case it isnecessary to sell any portion of the conjugal property inorder to pay outstanding obligations of the partnership. 6. 1929 stating that Anacleto only owned ¼ of Lot No. CRUZ. They likewise prayed for the "repartition and resubdivision" of the subject property. October 5. MEMORACION Z. Respondent. OSWALDO Z. At that time. private respondent amendedhis original complaint. petitioner failed to apply for administration or request that administration be granted tosome other person. thatthe conjugal partnership continues. HON. Public respondentissued the herein assailed order that the indebtednesswas incurred by Carlos Ngo and defendant SulpiciaVentura and since Carlos Ngo is now dead that will notpreclude the plaintiff from filing a case against theliving defendant.” Subsequently. the respondents filed a complaint for annulment or nullification of the aforementioned documents and for damages. even after the deathof one of the spouses. Sulpicia Ventura. And privaterespondent cannot be said to have no remedy. fail and neglect to pay despite repeated demands. however.” the same being “neither a natural nor legalperson in contemplation of law. no specialproceeding to settle his estate had been filed in court. while 302.Petitioner moved to dismiss the foregoing complaint on theground that “the estate of Carlos Ngo has no legalpersonality. Considering that capacityto be sued is a correlative of the capacity to sue. and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. but upon appeal it was reversed.R. thus. the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in the proper special proceedings in court.such sale must be made in the manner and with theformalities established by the Rules of Court for the sale of the property of deceased persons.After the death of one of the spouses.To cure this fatal defect.private respondent deleted the estate of Carlos Ngoand named petitioner as the defendant. Said obligation is already due and demandableand the defendant thru Ms. The public respondentgave private respondent fifteen (15) days to make the Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of theorder of public respondent permitting privaterespondent to amend his complaint. the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over either the deceased Carlos Ngo or his estate. The original complaintof petitioner named the “estate of Carlos Ngo asrepresented by surviving spouse Ms. m. An action begun by adecedent's estate cannot be said to have been begunby a legal person. in her comment to the amended complaint. belongs to Dionisia and the rest of the property is co-owned by Nicolasa Bacalso. must be one which is present and substantial. We agree. Alleging that the documents are fraudulent and fictitious. MILITANTE FACTS: Private respondent filed a Complaint for a Sum of Money and Damages against petitioner. to thesame extent.assuming it was a charge against the conjugalproperty. vs. The RTC dismissed the case. Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court. During the lifetimeof Carlos Ngo he was indebted with the plaintiff (hereinpriv. contingent. Sulpicia Ventura”as the defendant. failed and neglected and still continues torefuse. Florentino Reyes and Maximiano Dico. The proper actionshould be in the form of a claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse.Petitioner scurried to this Court praying that theforegoing order of the public respondent be set asideand the amended complaint of private respondent. Issue: Whether or not the respondents have to institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera before they can file an ordinary civil action to nullify the affidavits of Anacleto Cabrera and Dionisia Reyes.reasoned that the conjugal partnership of gainsbetween her and Carlos Ngo was terminated upon thelatter's death and that the debt which he contracted.”In his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. No. This does not mean. there being nothingbefore the court to amend. Such interest. . a decedent does not have the capacity tobe sued and may not be named a party defendant in acourt action.As such. petitioner insistedthat since “the money claim subject of this case actuallyrepresents the costs of automotive spareparts/replacements contracted by deceased Carlos Ngoduring his lifetime for the benefit/business of the family x xx the conjugal partnership x x x shall be accountable for the payment thereof. represented by EDGARDO Z.Neither a dead person nor his estate may be a partyplaintiff in a court action.any judgment obtained thereby is void.and this.such an action is a nullity and a motion to amend theparty plaintiff will not likewise lie. entitled to the subject property. hence the petition. in order that every casemay so far as possible be determined on its real facts. CRUZ.private respondent simply reiterated his demand thatpetitioner pay her husband's debt which. A real party in interest is the one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the one entitled to the avails thereof. andin order to speed the trial of causes or prevent the circuitryof action and unnecessary expense. as distinguished from a mere expectancy. resp. Petitioner. or a future. there is no liquidation of theconjugal partnership.redounded to the benefit of everyone in her family.Dionisia Reyes dated July 13.

9 we held that a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale of Real Property is one relating to property and property rights. for "Annulment of Sale. it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof. appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that (1) the plaintiff’s reconveyance action is a personal action which does not survive a party’s death. now the subject of controversy. she discovered that the title to the said property was transferred by appellee and the latter’s wife in their names in August 1991 under TCT No. Memoracion’s counsel. Atty. 2010 We find the appeal meritorious. Literato. Reconveyance and Damages. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased. Cruz’s Petition for Annulment of Deed of Sale. the said motion was subsequently denied by Acting Presiding Judge Cielito N. the wrong complained [of] affects primarily and principally property and property rights. misrepresentation and simulation.8 If the case affects primarily and principally property and property rights. The Court’s Ruling . If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party. upon proper notice. Atty. 1997 Order. Judge Lucia Pena Purugganan granted the same. 0-199377 by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated February 12. Thereafter. Rule 3 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure necessarily applies. in view of the foregoing. or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period. as an heir of Memoracion Cruz. may be recovered as costs. If the legal representative fails to appear within said time. 2000]. manifested to the trial court that he is retaining the services of Atty. stating that the remedy under the circumstances is ordinary appeal. notified the trial court on January 13. but the appeal was dismissed by Judge MindaroGrulla. Death of party. Reconveyance and Damages is a purely personal action which did not survive her death. the injuries to the person being merely incidental. Through a Manifestation. 63467 at the Register of Deeds of Manila. if defrayed by the opposing party. Cruz filed with the Regional Trial Court in Manila a Complaint against her son. 17. After Memoracion x x x finished presenting her evidence in chief. within a period of thirty (30) days. the instant case for annulment of sale of real property merits survival despite the death of petitioner Memoracion Z. and the claim is not thereby extinguished. [stating that] the proper remedy being certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. and the representative shall immediately appear for FACTS: Memoracion Z. the barangay x x x issued x x x a certification to file [an] action in court. Accordingly. Section 16.R. Cruz. the court shall order. duty of counsel. while in the causes of action which do not survive. Neri. In Sumaljag v. Barcena. within a specified time. In the causes of action which survive. Simultaneously. Edgardo Z. the trial court issued the appealed Order in a disposition that reads: "Wherefore. the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased. Reconveyance and Damages survived the death of petitioner The criterion for determining whether an action survives the death of a petitioner was elucidated in Bonilla v. she acquired a parcel of land located at Tabora corner Limay Streets. without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. Roberto T. No. or within such time as may be granted. Obrero. Bo. Cruz. Rule 3 of the old Rules of Court: SEC. and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. she died on October 30. filed a notice of appeal in behalf of the deceased plaintiff. defendant-appellee Oswaldo Z.7 to wit: The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. viz: Sec. the injury complained of is to the person. with the help of her husband’s relatives. The foregoing section is a revision of Section 17. survives the death of the petitioner. asked appellee to settle the problem. that the said deed was executed through fraud. hence. . On June 2. and that since the matter was unsettled. Neri for the plaintiff. On appellant’s motion for reconsideration. to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. Mindaro-Grulla [on October 31. For his part. the court may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal representative of the deceased within a time to be specified by the court. that she. 1997 of the fact of such death. this case is ordered dismissed without prejudice to the prosecution thereof in the proper estate proceedings. and (2) to allow the case to continue would result in legal absurdity whereby one heir is representing the defendant [and is a] co-plaintiff in this case. 1997." Memoracion’s sonheir. The Petition for Annulment of Sale. and 2. then it survives the death of the plaintiff or petitioner. Cruz. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Memoracion Z. Death of party.Whenever a party to a pending action dies. Tondo Manila. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming with modification the RTC Order dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Deed of Sale. and therefore. that the said lot was registered in her name under TCT No. . that she filed a complaint against appellee before the office of the Barangay having jurisdiction over the subject property. Reconveyance and Damages. null and void. 1996. Edgardo Cruz. 16. pursuant to Section 21. Reconveyance and Damages When a party dies during the pendency of a case. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. 1973. forgery." Memoracion claimed that during her union with her commonlaw husband (deceased) Architect Guido M. signed by Atty. that despite repeated pleas and demands.After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished. The CA erred in affirming RTC’s dismissal of the Petition for Annulment of Deed of Sale. 173292 September 1. Neri filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the June 2. However. evidenced by a certificate thereof. Cruz. The court charges in procuring such appointment. the property and rights of property affected being incidental. appellee refused to reconvey to her the said property. the court may order the opposing party.G. The Issues The issues for resolution in this case are: 1. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. Neri. Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.

the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. petitioner’s ownership over the property was consolidated and TCT No.552 sq. borrowed P100. his lawyer filed Motion for Substitution wherein instead of naming the wife and children of dead plaintiff.e. November 28. a government financial institution created and operating under EO 81. The court charges involved in procuring such appointment. GAGARANI September 17. P-4272 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. located at Pagawan." From the moment of the death of the decedent. Thus. died[. November 28. therefore. T-9626 was issued and registered in his name on November 17.] her claim or right to the parcels of land x x x was not extinguished by her death but was transmitted to her heirs upon her death. T-27172 issued in the name of petitioner. however. However. It held that the period of redemption started from the date of registration of the certificate of sale. Then the five-year period provided under Sec. 1997 to exercise their right to repurchase. . Roberto T. -What ma'am did was to OPPOSE THE SUBSTITUTION! DBP VS. 119 of CA 141 should be counted from the expiration of the redemption period.[4] Pursuant to the extrajudicial settlement of the estate with quitclaim executed by the spouses’ children. So siblings were the the proper legal reps. respectively. Misamis Oriental. Even if he is not included. respondents filed a complaint for repurchase against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Initao. 2005. 2008 F: J.and on behalf of the interest of the deceased. particularly the deceased and his estate. within a period of five years from date of the conveyance.[6] as amended by RA 8523. Asok owned several parcels of land.000 from petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines.e. therefore. his widow. Neri. Judge Sumaljag v. *stranger things happen in real life. 1998.297. Misamis Oriental with an area of 39. Her heirs have thus acquired interest in the properties in litigation and became parties in interest in the case.g. As explained in Bonilla: x x x Article 777 of the Civil Code provides "that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. Pending case is for declaration of nullity of deed of sale and lease contract H: Req'ts in R3. 1991. Manticao. it is the duty of the deceased’s counsel to inform the court of such death. 1998 to repurchase the property and the complaint was seasonably filed. docketed as Civil Case No. 2008 The spouses Dionesio and Matea S. Upon their death on September 14. i. Cruz died on 30 October 1996. On July 3. The reason for this rule is to protect all concerned who may be affected by the intervening death.111avvphi1 In the instant case. respondents appealed to the CA. 119 of CA 141. guardian .are involved .16: Rule applies when pending action not extinguished by death Legal reps: executor. Asok died on October 24.. he named the person which was supposedly now the owner of the land . respondents had until December 24. subject to the rights and obligations of the decedent. they filed an amended complaint on learning that TCT No. The right of the heirs to the property of the deceased vests in them even before judicial declaration of their being heirs in the testate or intestate proceedings. They invoked their right to repurchase the property under Sec. Asok and his wife. i.[8] On November 28. if defrayed by the opposing party. and to give the names and addresses of the deceased’s legal representatives. P-4272. December 24. This was registered on December 24. the heirs become the absolute owners of his property. [11] On May 15.[5] On August 31. the RTC dismissed the complaint.[14] Aggrieved. OCT No.[7] Petitioner emerged as the highest bidder with a bid of P163. So 2 sections on land: RULE 3. One of the lands inherited was a lot covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. E.. 1998. But in this case. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased. respondents had until November 28. or the legal representative fails to appear within a specified period. About 30 days. without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. 1992. 119. T-27172 was issued in its name. They mortgaged the subject lot as collateral to guarantee payment of the loan.counsel should have notified the court of the transfer when the client was still alive ? But the transferree is not really required to be a party in the case. 1992.. 1987. shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant. 9868.. may be recovered as costs.10 If no legal representative is named by the counsel of the deceased. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions. Reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated March 28. when proper. notified the trial court of such death on 13 January 1997. The moment of death is the determining factor when the heirs acquire a definite right to the inheritance whether such right be pure or contingent. 1993 and was succeeded by his surviving spouse and children (respondents).[10] Meanwhile. the court insisted that even if the transferree is now present. he would be bound. respondent Ella Gagarani Asok. In a decision dated December 14... Literato GR 149787 Jun 18. 1967.e. their eleven children inherited the properties. [13] It ruled that the one-year period for redemption should be reckoned from the date of sale. There is. 1998 which was beyond the prescribed period. When [plaintiff]. On due date..constituted to take charge of the estate Duty of counsel is to inform court of fact of death and give names of the heirs -here: death cert shows that deceased died. Reconsideration was denied on February 3. Sumaljag seeks to be substituted because he is the transferee of the lot of deceased. Atty.. they failed to pay the loan and the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed pursuant to Act 3135. and they cannot be deprived of their rights thereto except by the methods provided for by law. Her counsel. the subject property was inherited by Denison Asok (Asok). and not from the date of sale. no reason for the respondent Court not to allow their substitution as parties in interest for the deceased plaintiff. 1999. 2006. In a decision dated January 7. The deceased may be substituted by his heirs in the pending action. or legal heirs. it is the duty of the court where the case is pending to order the opposing party to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased. petitioner (plaintiff) Memoracion Z. 1989. 1999. 1992. Therefore. administrator. As a result. a certificate of sale was issued in favor of petitioner. i. sections 16 and 19 . 1998.[9] On March 25. T-9626 had been cancelled by TCT No. m. If the action survives despite death of a party. 1973 and February 22.. Plaintiff passed away. as amended:[12] Sec. Branch 44.[15] Hence this petition. the transferor should be represented by his own heirs who would own the property in case the transfer is void. a free patent issued on July 19. the complaint was filed on May 15. 1991. 1982.

1993.[16] This contention deserves scant consideration.[21] we held that: The term “legal heirs” is used in Section 119 in a generic sense. who in turn inherited it from his parents. and respondents Francisco Pascual and Miguel N. The petition lacks merit. In a petition for "Judicial Settlement of Intestate Estate and Issuance of Letters of Administration" filed by respondents on Verily. 119 is applicable to this case. Thus. can be considered as among the legal heirs who can repurchase the land in accordance with Salenillas v. CA:[26] Thus. As we explained in Ferrer v. [23] In that case. 1999 leaving as heirs his siblings. Its blessings. as well as pragmatic considerations thus call for continued adherence to the policy that not the individual applicant alone but those so closely related to him as are entitled to legal succession may take full advantage of the benefits the law confers. xxx xxx xxx The above interpretation of "legal heirs" as contra-distinguished from the restrictive construction given it by the lower court is more in keeping with the salutary purpose behind the enactment of Section 119 and the jurisprudence laid down on the matter.[29] Here. CA. We have time and again said that between two statutory interpretations. died intestate on January 2. respondents had a five-year period. If he fails to do so. 119 begins to run from the expiration of the one-year redemption period. the CA was correct in holding that the complaint filed on May 15. In line with the rationale behind Sec. ARELLANO vs. This argument lacks merit. AGNES P. the sense of fitness and of right. v. 189776 December 15. they now step into the shoes of the decedents. to exercise their right to repurchase under Sec. we allowed the daughter and son-in-law of the patentees to repurchase the property because this would be “more in keeping with the spirit of the law. It is used in a broad sense and the law makes no distinctions. Consequently. Having been decreed under the rules on intestacy as entitled to succeed to the estate of the Catain spouses due to the absence of compulsory heirs. Legal heirs are not necessarily compulsory heirs but they may be so if the law reserves a legitime for them. In fact. the rules on redemption in the case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of land acquired under free patent or homestead statutes may be summarized as follows: xxx If the land is mortgaged to parties other than rural banks. Mangente:[18] The applicant for a homestead is to be given all the inducement that the law offers and is entitled to its full protection.R. as daughter-in-law of the patentees. 119 of CA 141 is applicable in this case. The policy of the law is not difficult to understand. The plain intent of Sec. 119. petitioners are legal heirs. They should be considered as among the legal heirs contemplated by Section 119 as entitled to redeem the homestead. Reckoned from that day. the fact that the land had been inherited by the patentees’ son (and a new title in his name issued) does not bring it outside the purview of Sec. namely: petitioner Amelia P. Arellano (Agnes) and Nona P. Pascual Jr. we now go to the next issue: are respondents the “legal heirs” contemplated in the provision? Petitioner argues that respondents are not the legal heirs of the patentees because respondents are merely their daughter-inlaw and grandchildren. however. the law must be liberally construed in order to carry out its purpose. Inc.[28] The five-year period fixed in Sec. de la Merced. Pascual. legal heirs include both testate and intestate heirs depending upon whether succession is by the will of the testator or by law. This is far from a novel issue. . It was already resolved in Rural Bank of Davao City. 1998. No. 119. Arellano who is represented by her daughters Agnes P. Arellano. their husband and father. Indeed.Petitioner raises the following issues: (1) whether Sec.”[24] Furthermore. 3135. 1998 was on time. 1992 and the one-year redemption period expired on December 24. This is merely a recognition of how closely bound parents and children are in a Filipino family. 2010 AMELIA P.[27] There is no dispute that in extrajudicial foreclosures under Act 3135. that which better serves the purpose of the law should prevail. We disagree.[19] Having ruled that Sec. 119 which covers homesteads and free patents because the free patent issued to Asok’s parents had already been cancelled and a new TCT had in fact been issued to him. Logic. There is no question then as to his status of being a legal heir. 119 is to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve and keep in the family the land that the State has gratuitously given him as a reward for his labor in cleaning. petitioner asserts that even if respondents could be considered as being entitled to the right under Sec. Thus. Petitioner contends that respondents cannot claim the right under Sec. 119. represented by her duly appointed guardians. ARELLANO. Respondent Ella Gagarani Asok. it is not far-fetched to arrive at a more liberal conclusion if the section is analyzed in accordance with its purpose xxxx[22] Respondents inherited the property from Asok. or until December 24. this had already prescribed because the period should be counted from the date of conveyance which means the date of sale and not the date of registration of the certificate of sale. This is particularly so in this case as the appellee is the son of the deceased. the policy behind the law is fulfilled because the land remains in the family of the patentee. the mortgagor may redeem the property within one (1) year from the registration of the certificate of sale pursuant to Act No. This redemption period should be reckoned from the date of registration of the certificate of sale.[17] Hence. The incentive for a pioneer to venture into developing virgin land becomes more attractive if he is assured that his effort will not go for naught should perchance his life be cut short. developing and cultivating it. ARELLANO and NONA P. he or his heirs may repurchase the property within five (5) years from the expiration of the redemption period also pursuant to Section 119 of the Public Land Act. (2) whether respondents are the legal heirs of the patentees and (3) whether the right to repurchase has already prescribed.[25] Finally. the debtor or his or her successors-in-interest may redeem the property within one year. It is broad enough to cover any person who is called to the succession either by provision of a will or by operation of law. the certificate of sale was registered on December 24. 119 of CA 141.[20] In Madarcos v. the property mortgaged to it was no longer covered by a free patent but by a TCT. we reject a restricted definition of legal heirs. do not stop with him. FRANCISCO PASCUAL and MIGUEL PASCUAL Angel N. G.

it is the return to the hereditary estate of property disposed of by lucrative title by the testator during his lifetime. The secondary compulsory heirs are those who succeed only in the absence of the primary heirs. Parties are indispensable if their interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought is inextricably intertwined with that of the other parties. assuming that it was valid. and Imelda Romualdez-Marcos as executors of the last will and testament of the late Ferdinand E. and the surviving spouse are concurring compulsory heirs. it is a mere mathematical operation by the addition of the value of donations made by the testator to the value of the hereditary estate. Jr. Rule 3. MARCOS-MANOTOC The Marcos siblings are compulsory heirs. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood. are not entitled to any legitime – that part of the testator’s property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for compulsory heirs. 1004. The purposes of collation are to secure equality among the compulsory heirs in so far as is possible. and to determine the free portion. the trial court. According to this provision. It bears emphasis that the Complaint is one for the reversion. as executors of the Marcos estate pursuant to Sec. so that inofficious donations may be reduced. Makati. Art. Marcos. is deemed as donation made to a "stranger. finally. he was at liberty to donate all his properties. and the payment of these properties. To reiterate. real or personal . the donated property is not subject to collation. given the nature and the extent of the properties involved in the case pending with the Sandiganbayan. by Deed of Donation. they shall inherit in equal shares. as well as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses in an amount to be proven during the trial. The compulsory heirs may be classified into (1) primary. or a surviving spouse. control or ownership. acting as probate court. viz: Art. in its third Amended Complaint. REPUBLIC VS.April 28. who are his collateral relatives and. and (7) pay treble judicial costs. even if nothing was left for his siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. His donation to petitioner. the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles. we take judicial notice of the probate proceedings regarding the will of Ferdinand E. the reconveyance. (2) secondary. (4) pay moral damages amounting to P50 billion. the restitution and the accounting of alleged ill-gotten wealth and the payment of damages. it is imperative therefore that the estate be duly represented. 2000. They are those parties who possess such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights. If there is no compulsory heir. Unless the executors of the Marcos estate or the heirs are ready to waive in favor of the state their right to defend or protect the estate or those properties found to be ill-gotten in their possession. there is no legitime to be safeguarded. the accounting and the recovery of ill-gotten wealth – the present case must be maintained against Imelda Marcos and herein respondent Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. ascendants. 181889 of the Register of Deeds of Makati. Jr. herein petitioner and respondents. Collation takes place when there are compulsory heirs. that a parcel of land (the donated property) located in Teresa Village. (2) tracing where these properties are.[41] we upheld the grant by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of letters testamentary in solidum to Ferdinand R. inter alia. as he continues to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate. The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right to due process of every party to a litigation who may be affected by the intervening death. Since the pending case before the Sandiganbayan survives the death of Ferdinand E. petitioner prays that the Marcos respondents be made to (1) pay for the value of the alleged ill-gotten wealth with interest from the date of acquisition. secondary.. There being no compulsory heir. so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence. Sec. which respondents assailed but which they. and. after finding the legitime. the illegitimate children. Respecting the donated property. 7 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as those parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. in any event. The decedent not having left any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime. The deceased litigant is himself protected. (2) render a complete accounting and inventory of all funds and other pieces of property legally or beneficially held and/or controlled by them. (3) pay actual damages estimated at P200 billion and additional actual damages to reimburse expenses for the recovery of the alleged ill-gotten wealth estimated at P250 million or in such amount as may be proven during trial." chargeable against the free portion of the estate.[40] On that note. In Republic of the Philippines v. one of its purposes being to determine the legitime and the free portion. "may be considered as an advance legitime" of petitioner. then they may not be dropped as defendants in the civil case pending before the Sandiganbayan. The records do not show that the decedent left any primary. 1003. now covered in the name of petitioner by Transfer Certificate of Title No. [42] In order to reach a final determination of the matters concerning the estate of Ferdinand E. which was. Marcos II. actions may be commenced to recover from the estate. Marcos – that is. Based on the allegations of the Complaint. The concurring compulsory heirs are those who succeed together with the primary or the secondary compulsory heirs. the court is charged with the task of (1) determining the properties in the Marcos estate that constitute the alleged ill-gotten wealth. (4) determining if the award of damages is proper.[39] It must be stressed that we are faced with exceptional circumstances. Marcos. the recovery. He was only survived by his siblings. as well as their legal and beneficial interest therein. however. (6) pay exemplary damages in the amount of P1 billion. legitimate children and descendants are primary compulsory heirs. therefore. the legitimate parents and ascendants are secondary compulsory heirs. (5) pay temperate and nominal damages. or concurring compulsory heirs. posited that it "may be considered as an advance legitime" to petitioner. If there are no descendants. (3) issuing the appropriate orders for the accounting. and second. transferred by the decedent to petitioner the validity of which donation respondents assailed. pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code. Marcos. and (3) concurring. The primary compulsory heirs are those who have precedence over and exclude other compulsory heirs. held that it was precluded from determining the validity of the donation. respondents alleged. Marcos. Marcos. The decedent’s remaining estate should thus be partitioned equally among his heirs-siblings-collateral relatives. 1 of Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. HELD: The term collation has two distinct concepts: first. illegitimate children.

who claimed that he was and has been a tenant-tiller of the lot for 45 years. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract which involves a property right. the nature of the rights and obligations therein are. DKC thus opened a savings account in the name of Victor and deposited therein the rental fee. Bautista. Whether the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy entered into by the late Encarnacion Bartolome with DKC was terminated upon her death or whether it binds her sole heir. . the rights to the estate must be duly protected. to wit: 1. real or personal. Alcala vs. sold a property left by their deceased father. they may be in possession. We also hold that the action must likewise be maintained against Imee Marcos-Manotoc and Irene Marcos-Araneta on the basis of the non-exhaustive list attached as Annex “A” to the Third Amended Complaint. Victor. v. However. 528. a certain Lozano. and. therefore. there is neither contractual stipulation nor legal provision making the rights and obligation under the contract intransmissible. there is no personal act required from the late Encarnacion. this Court. as well as their legal and beneficial interest in such funds and other property. by its terms. the subject matter of the contract is a lease. except in case where the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by (1) their nature. DKC coursed its payment to Victor. the obligation of Encarnacion to deliver possession of the property may very well be performed by Victor. of all funds and other property legally or beneficially held and/or controlled by them. transmissible. Secondly. possess or own ill-gotten wealth. Thus. and the effect of such assignment or mortgage shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted him in the partition upon the dissolution of the community. lawfully acquired by them.000 as rent.[43] It is only during the trial of Civil Case No. (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law. 14 Phil. The property rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted to another through the decedent’s death. Rather. may be commenced against the executors. 2. Meanwhile. or an interest therein. CA DKC entered into a Contract of Lease with Option to Buy with Encarnacion Bartolome. In the course of the proceedings. Victor refused to accept the payment and to surrender passion of the property. a community of ownership being thus formed among the coowners of the estate while it remains undivided. shows the performance by others was contemplated. including the subject lot. by their nature. Thereafter. Again. AS TO THE FIRST SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION – To return and reconvey to Plaintiff all funds and other property acquired by Defendants during their incumbency as public officers. the son and sole heir of Encarnacion. Thus. and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property. Where the service or act is of such a character that it may be performed by another. and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. but that the effect thereof was limited to the share which may be allotted to the vendors upon the partition of the estate.[44] In this concept. In Jakosalem v. which states that the listed properties therein were owned by Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos and their immediate family. DKC regularly paid the monthly Php 3. AS TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – to individually render to this Honorable Court a complete accounting and inventory. to solidarily pay Plaintiff the value thereof with interest thereon from the date of acquisition until full payment. 679. other lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property which Defendants have failed to establish as having been. filed a Motion for Intervention.” And Manresa with reason states that upon the death of a person. Alcala. said that the sale was valid. their lack of participation in any illegal act does not remove the character of the property as ill-gotten and. Victor executed an Affidavit of SelfAdjudication over all the properties of Encarnacion. (2) they allegedly control. their assigns and heirs. Thus. under the rules of succession. 35 Phil. in case the inheritance be accepted. Also. alternatively. (Emphasis supplied) In sum. Article 1311 of the NCC provides: Contracts take effect only between the parties. which option must be exercised within 2 years from the signing of the Contract. petitioner’s prayer in its Third Amended Complaint directly refers to herein respondents. DKC filed a complaint for specific performance and damages. More importantly. DKC undertook to pay Php 3. or to enforce a lien thereon. The SC held that Victor is bound by the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy. speaking thru its then Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano. In this case. death does not terminate the contract or excuse nonperformance. in fact. a new TCT was issued in the name of Victor. in the case of Ramirez vs. DKC Holdings Corp. or where the contract. whereby DKC was given the option to lease or lease with purchase a land belonging to Encarnacion. a property right. In turn. which funds and other property are manifestly out of proportion to their salaries. the heirs instantaneously became co-owners of the Marcos properties upon the death of the President. Later.) And according to article 399 of the Civil Code. therefore. In this case. even absent their declaration or absent the partition or the distribution of the estate. ownership or control of such ill-gotten properties or the proceeds thereof as heirs of the Marcos couple. DKC gave notice to Victor that it was exercising its option to lease the property tendering the amount of Php 15. the Marcos siblings are maintained as respondents. DKC also tried to register and annotate the Contract on the title of Victor but the Register of Deeds refused to register or annotate the same. each of his heirs “becomes the undivided owner of the whole estate left with respect to the part or portion which might be adjudicated to him. Victor refused to accept these payments. Rafols. though their direct involvement in accumulating or acquiring such wealth may not have been proven. where some of the heirs. while it was not proven that respondents conspired in accumulating ill-gotten wealth.000 a month for the reservation of its option.[45] we said: Article 440 of the Civil Code provides that “the possession of hereditary property is deemed to be transmitted to the heir without interruption from the instant of the death of the decedent.000 until Encarnacion’s death. (Emphasis supplied) Lastly. subject to evaluation of Court-appointed assessors. because (1) the action pending before the Sandiganbayan is one that survives 357. every part owner may assign or mortgage his part in the common property. Thus. nothing prevents the heirs from exercising their right to transfer or dispose of the properties that constitute their legitimes. without the concurrence of the others.” (3 Manresa. The RTC denied Lozano’s Motion and dismissed the complaint filed by DKC. as rightfully belonging to the State. Hence. 0002 before the Sandiganbayan that there could be a determination of whether these properties are indeed ill-gotten or were legitimately acquired by respondents and their predecessors. even after her demise.

” Undaunted. v.except the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the aforementioned Yaptinchays . et al. Now. the agreement is of personal nature. 493665. Rivera[9]. CA-G-R No. 1131 with an area of 520. 1132 with an area of 96. On August 26. 1994. This doctrine was reiterated in Solivio v. this court opined that the declaration of heirship must be made in an administration proceeding. Monzon. v. which is subject to appeal and not a proper subject of certiorari[7]. certiorari will not lie[8]. Where appeal is available as a remedy. As Alternative Reconveyance of Realty WITH A PRAYER FOR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and/or RESTRAINING ORDER WITH DAMAGES. 493366. The said Motion to Dismiss was granted by the respondent court in its Order[4] dated October 25. There is privity of interest between an heir and his deceased predecessor – he only succeeds to what rights his predecessor had and what is valid and binding against the latter is also valid and binding against the former. 1537.” The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. respectively. petitioners filed with the “RTC” an Amended Complaint to implead new and additional defendants and to mention the TCTs to be annulled. holding that petitioners “have not shown any proof or even a semblance of it . Court of Appeals[10] where the court held: "In Litam. al. genius. Where acts stipulated in a contract require the exercise of special knowledge. ordinarily. which further allowed the herein petitioners to file a Second Amended Complaint. will not be. of the aforesaid properties were titled in the name of respondent Golden Bay Realty and Development Corporation (“Golden Bay”) under Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. and. entitled to inherit his one-half share of the conjugal properties acquired during his marriage to Marcosa Rivera. Cavite.. the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in the proper special proceedings in court. the owners-claimants of Lot No. is a final order. the plaintiffsappellants filed a civil action in which they claimed that they were the children by a previous marriage of the deceased to a Chinese woman. 1995. petitioners executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the estate of the deceased Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay. it being within the exclusive competence of the court in Special Proceedings No. in issue until the presentation of the project of partition. and that plaintiffs’ claim was barred by laches. integrity. or other personal qualification of one or both parties. (“TCT”) 225254 and 225255. petitioners discovered that a portion. Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. To begin with. However.” In Litam. The motion was granted by the RTC in an Order[1] dated July 7. Similarly. petitioners filed a complaint for ANNULMENT and/or DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF TCT NO. 378). This must take precedence over the action for reconveyance (Elena C.except the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the above-named Yaptinchays . in which it is not as yet. YAPTINCHAY VS. 1994. 1992). 1996. On March 17. 100 Phil. that they have not established their status as heirs. 33355.Since DKC exercised its option in accordance with the contract. and that the latter was his only heir. where despite the pendency of the special proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate of the deceased Rafael Litam.235 square meters. that the properties in question were paraphernal properties of his wife. Neither did the respondent court commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned Order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint of petitioners. be it right or wrong. if not all. 1995. The petition is not impressed with merit. and terminates on the death of the party who is required to render such service. and its Derivatives. But the respondent court dismissed the Amended Complaint. Upon learning that “Golden Bay” sold portions of the parcels of land in question. al. SC held that the issue of tenancy should be ventilated in another proceeding.that they have been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple.[2] which they promptly did. 2071. (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law. Petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the late Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay. and not in an independent civil action. 493367. et. On August 12. With the discovery of what happened to subject parcels of land. Marcosa Rivera. taste. is that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest except when the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by (1) their nature. that plaintiffs did not have a right of action. Cavite. 1995 and February 23.’ (p. judgment. Under Section 3. nonperformance is not excused by the death of the party when the other party has a property interest in the subject matter of the contract. and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. The general rule. etc. and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. discretion. the private respondents presented a Motion to Dismiss[3] on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. we ruled that ‘such declarations (that Marcosa Rivera was the only heir of the decedent) is improper. in issue. petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari before this Court is an improper recourse. An order of dismissal. hence. experience. Cavite (“RTC”). in Civil Case No. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract which involves a property right. petitioners have come before this Court to seek relief from respondent court’s Orders under attack. Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the Order dismissing the Amended Complaint. the trial court in the civil case declared that the plaintiffs-appellants were not children of the deceased. et.638 and Lot No. v. of Branch 21 of the Regional Trial Court in Imus. 493364. the SC held that Victor has the obligation to surrender possession of and lease of premises for 6 years. docketed as RTC BCV-94-127 before Branch 21 of the Regional Trial Court in Imus. or the prevention or redress of a wrong” while a special proceeding is “a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a . that the land being claimed is different from that of the defendants. DEL ROSARIO At bar is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Orders dated October 25. Petitioners contend that the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the issue of heirship should first be determined before trial of the case could proceed. 1995. more or less situated in Bancal.. therefore.that they have been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple. August 12. ability. a civil action is defined as “one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right. 364. 493363. Angelita Taligato. It is petitioners’ submission that the respondent court should have proceeded with the trial and simultaneously resolved the issue of heirship in the same case. Carmona. as it aptly ratiocinated and ruled: “But the plaintiffs who claimed to be the legal heirs of the said Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay have not shown any proof or even a semblance of it . Their proper remedy should have been an appeal. skill. Rivera. On appeal to this Court.

consideration is hereby DISMISSED. and we have ruled that the hereditary assets are always liable intheir totality for the payment of the debts of the estate. in 1963. From the order. Jesus Yanes. Meanwhile. the CFI rendered a decision in favor of PRs. . petitioners. which gave rise to the present claim fordamages. died her claim or right to the parcels of land in litigation in Civil Case No. The court ruledthat the judgment cannot be enforced bec. Rufino and his children left the duringWW2. widow of JULIAN TAMAYO and HON. It ruled that equity demanded that the PRs recover the actual value of theland bec. the plaintiff’s counsel filed a second MR of the order dismissing the complaint but the same was denied. ESPERANZA BARCENA." When Fortunata Barcena. No. therefore. prescription and estoppel in their answer. It is. plaintiff’s counsel received a copy of the order dismissing the complaint and on the 23rd of the same month. Alvarez. MANUEL BARCENA. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court "whenever a party to a pending case dies. Thepets raised res judicata. v. No. The reason is that whatever payment is thus made from the state is ultimately apayment by the heirs or distributees. mother of minors Rosalio Bonilla and Salvacion Bonilla and wife of Ponciano Bonilla. a right. The appellate court affirmed theTCs decision. It must. Reyes (Rodrigo) are two of the four children of the spouses Pedro and Anastacia "WAR KIDS" Laura Alvarez v. Fuente.B were alreadyissued to Santiago. the plaintiff’s counsel moved to amend the complaint which was granted. Ruling: *Civil Case 5022 is already the law of the case because pets failed to file an appeal. Wills Issue: WON the obligation of deceased Alvarez (he died already) to pay the PRs could be legallytransmitted and passed down to his legitimate children and heirs. May 7. this present petition for review. Siason was not a party in the case. the legal representative of the deceased to appear and be substituted for the deceased.R. a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. LEOPOLDO GIRONELLA of the Court of First Instance of Abra. Luzon Surety)Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez. SC is already powerless to review thedecision. and to give the name and residence of his executor. but before the hearing of the said motion. to quiet title over certain parcels of land located in Abra. Under Section 17. Thus. Intermediate Appellate Court. While it is true that a person who is dead cannot sue in court. The said motion to dismiss was then heard. AGUSTINA NERI. Court of Appeals[11]. Article 777 of the Civil Code provides "that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. his wife sold the lots toRosendo Alvarez. the action in the instant case survives. The defendants again filed another motion to dismiss the complaint.PRs filed a complaint against Santi. During the pendency of the case." The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. the duty of the respondent Court to order the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to appear and to be substituted for her. Jesus executed a quitclaim in favor of defendant. respondents.” WHEREFORE. the court nullified its previous order coz Siason was in GFand without knowledge.Another action was filed by the PRs for the recov of the land plus damages and prutas. The cadastral court initially ordered Siason toproduce his TCTs. Inc. within such time as may be granted. the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of theirfather's hereditary estate. vs. and Alvarez. yet he can be substituted by his heirs in pursuing the case up to its completion. Felipe and Teodora. they cannot escape thelegal consequences of their father's transaction.” It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. the sale was executed without court approval. administrator. HELD: Yes. et al. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court "after a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished. MR also denied. L-68053. guardian or other legal representatives. Hence. The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not altered by the provision of our Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased must beliquidated and paid from his estate before the residue is distributed among said heirs (Rule89). We therefore hold that the respondent court did the right thing in dismissing the Second Amended Complaint. and the RD of Negros for the return of the ownership and possession of lots 773 and 823.The lower court ruled infavor of the PRs. be made clearthat petitioners are liable only to the extent of the value of their inheritance ROSALIO BONILLA (a minor) SALVACION BONILLA (a minor) and PONCIANO BONILLA (their father) who represents the minors. instituted a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Abra. REYES VS. RTC OF MAKATI CITY (AUG. they found out that lot 773 was in the possession of Santiago.(Civil case 5022Note: pets did not file an appeal in this dec. or a particular fact. in 1962.(grandchildren of the deadz sila) G.) Decision cannot be executed coz 733 wasalready registered in the name of Siason.(Estate of Hemady v. In Travel Wide Associated Sales (Phils. ISSUE: WON THE ACTION SURVIVES EVEN AFTER THE DEATH OF A PARTY DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE. since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishesor reduces the shares that the heirs would have been entitled to receive. Saiddecision had long become final and executory. Yes. In addition. was not extinguished by her death but was transmitted to her heirs upon her death. Ani left his children lots 773 and 823. 1975 Fortunata Barcena. 2008) Oscar and private respondent Rodrigo C. for lack of merit. which stated no cause of action. Siason. 1990 Facts: Aniceto was survived by his children Rufino. 856. The claim of the deceased plaintiff which is an action to quiet title over the parcels of land in litigation affects primarily and principally property and property rights and therefore is one that survives even after her death. therefore. On August 19. it was ruled that: “ xxx If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest.Fuentebella. However. Afterwards. Her heirs have thus acquired interest in the properties in litigation and became parties in interest in the case. Santi sold the lots to Fuente. LEON BARCENA." Moreover. 1976 FACTS: On March 31.R. he moved to set aside the said order.status. 1975. Under Section 16. After liberation. The herein defendants then filed a written motion to dismiss the complaint. the court shall order.The PRs filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of an alias writ of exec. The court denied the MR filed by the plaintiff’s counsel which the counsel later on filed a written manifestation allowing the minor petitioners to be allowed to substitute their deceased mother.). G. the Petition under That petitioners did not inherit the property involved herein is of no moment because by legal fiction. The PRs are the childrenof Rufino. MAXIMA ARIAS BALLENA. When Fuente died. L-41715 June 18. upon proper notice. 11. Record shows that TCTs covering lot 773-A. however. it shall be the duty of his attorney to inform the court promptly of such death. Alvasold the lots to Dr.

Reyes. which included her shareholdings in Zenith. a domestic corporation established by their family."5 [Emphasis supplied. Anastacia. while Anastacia died in 1993. Although Pedro’s estate was judicially partitioned among his heirs sometime in the 1970s. as a defense.250 shares.3 On May 9. in its Order dated November 29. it is outside the jurisdiction of the RTC acting as a special commercial court Accordingly. As of June 30. Oscar and Rodrigo owned 8. distribution. Anastacia owned 136.598 shares of Zenith. and that the suit is not a bona fide derivative suit because the requisites therefor have not been complied with. for which he should be ordered to account for all the income from the time he took these shares of stock. custody.] In his Answer with Counterclaim. Oscar filed a Motion to Declare Complaint as Nuisance or Harassment Suit. according to the Interim Rules of Procedure for IntraCorporate Controversies.715. 1990. 2002. Zenith and Rodrigo filed a complaint4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Oscar. and/or possession of respondent [herein petitioner Oscar] and to determine the shares of stock of deceased spouses Pedro and Anastacia Reyes that were arbitrarily and fraudulently appropriated [by Oscar] for himself [and] which were not collated and taken into account in the partition. be dismissed. he prays for the setting aside and annulment of the CA decision and resolution. and the dismissal of Rodrigo’s complaint before the RTC. that he purchased the subject shares with his own funds from the unissued stocks of Zenith. He asserted. 2002 (RTC Order). Oscar. The complaint stated that it is "a derivative suit initiated and filed by the complainant Rodrigo C. On October 22.637 and 4. and/or settlement of the estate of the deceased spouses. He thus questioned the SEC’s jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because it pertains to the settlement of the estate of Anastacia Reyes. hence.6 Oscar denied the charge that he illegally acquired the shares of Anastacia Reyes. and that it is not a bona fide derivative suit as it partakes of the nature of a petition for the settlement of estate of the deceased Anastacia that is outside the jurisdiction of a special commercial court. docketed as SEC Case No.9 He claimed that the complaint is a mere nuisance or harassment suit and should. 2000. The RTC. Pedro. denied the motion in part ISSUE: That the complaint is not a bona fide derivative suit but is in fact in the nature of a petition for settlement of estate. Pedro died in 1964. 05-00-6615. no similar settlement and partition appear to have been made with Anastacia’s estate. and should now deliver to his brothers and sisters their just and respective shares. respectively. and Rodrigo each owned shares of stock of Zenith Insurance Corporation (Zenith). HELD: . Reyes to obtain an accounting of the funds and assets of ZENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION which are now or formerly in the control.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.