You are on page 1of 5


G.R. No. 153142, March 29, 2010
The Coronel brothers executed a document entitled “Receipt of Down payment” in favor of Ramona Alcaraz upon
the receiving P50,000.00 as a down payment for the sale of their inherited house and lot in Quezon City. In the agreement
with Ramona, they will execute a deed of absolute sale immediately upon the transfer of the TCT to the name of the
brothers Coronel because the same was named to their father. On Feb.18, 1985, they sold the same property to petitioner
herein for a higher contract price than that of Ramona. For this reason, Coronel rescinded the first agreement with
Ramona by depositing to her the down payment of P50, 000.00. Consequently, respondents filed a case for specific
performance and caused the annotation of lis pendens over the property. On June 5, 1985, TCT 351382 was issued in the
name of petitioner herein.
RTC ruled in favor of respondents herein ordering the cancellation of the TCT in the name of petitioner. Hence,
this petition.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the registration by the Registry of Deeds of the DEED OF
ABSOLUTE SALE despite the lack of indication of citizenship of the buyer.
The High Court ruled that it should be pointed out that the petitioner was not the proper party to challenge
Ramona’s qualification to acquire land. Only the Government through the Solicitor General has the personality to file the
case challenging the capacity of person to acquire or own land based on non-citizenship. The limitation is based on the
fact that the violation is committed against the State and not against individual. And that in the event that the transferee is
adjudged to be not a Filipino citizen, the affected property reverts to the State, not to the previous owner or individual. It
will not inure to the benefit of the petitioner, instead the subject property will be escheated in favor of the State according
to BP Blg. 185.
husband ROMEO SOLANO, respondents.
G.R. No. 143483 | 2002-01-31

Amada Solano is the helper of Elizabeth Hankins for 30 years


Amada was her faithful girl Friday and constant companion since no relative is available to tend her needs

In recognition, Ms. Hankins executed 2 deeds of donation involving 2 parcels of land in favor of Amada. She
allegedly misplaced the deeds and can't be found
During the absence of the deed of donation, Republic filed a petition for escheat of the estate of Hankins; Romeo
Solano (spouse of Amada) filed for intervention but was denied by court because "they miserably failed to show valid
claim or right to the properties in question."
It was established that there were no known heirs and persons entitled to the properties, the LC escheated the
estate in favor of Republic of the Philippines
Amada claimed she accidentally found the deeds of donation. She filed for petition before CA for the annulment
of the LC's decision escheating the property in favor of the Republic

CA annulled LC's decision

private respondent has irretrievably lost her right to claim and the supposed "discovery of the deeds of donation" is not enough justification to nullify the escheat judgment which has long attained finality. A fortiori. proper notice having been observed. private respondent's belated assertion of her right over the escheated properties militates against recovery. A judgment in escheat proceedings when rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive against all persons with actual or constructive notice.ISSUE: Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to declare a parcel of land escheated in favor of the state HELD: YES We rule for the petitioner. constitutes due process of law. the burden is on such intervenor to establish his title to the property and his right to intervene. not being an heir but allegedly a donee. such person shall have possession of and title to the same.[8] "a judgment of escheat was held conclusive upon persons notified by advertisement to all persons interested. otherwise they may lose them forever in a final judgment. the escheat judgment was handed down by the lower court as early as 27 June 1989 but it was only on 28 January 1997. unlike that of succession or assignment. Absolute lack on the part of petitioners of any dishonest intent to deprive the appellee of any right. Any person alleging to have a direct right or interest in the property sought to be escheated is likewise an interested party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat."[5] Since escheat is one of the incidents of sovereignty. and usually does. on the contrary. As held in Hamilton v. In the absence of a lawful owner. the former because it claims to be the exclusive owner of the hacienda. It is settled that courts decide only after a close scrutiny of every piece of evidence and analyze each case with deliberate precision and unadulterated thoroughness."[6] The 5-year period is not a device capriciously conjured by the state to defraud any claimant. the question may be asked: Does herein private respondent. we agree with the Solicitor General that the case of Municipal Council of San Pedro. prescribe the conditions and limits the time within which a claim to such property may be made. In the instant petition."[9] Where a person comes into an escheat proceeding as a claimant. the state may. or if sold. In the absence therefore of any clear and convincing proof showing that the subject lands had been conveyed by Hankins to private respondent Solano. steps in and claims the real or personal property of a person who dies intestate leaving no heir. and a time limit is imposed within which such action must be brought. 4. more or less seven (7) years after. Incidentally. after deducting the estate. the municipality or city shall be accountable to him for the proceeds. We recall that a motion for intervention was earlier denied by the escheat court for failure to show "valid claim or right to the properties in question. . conjectures and unsubstantiated assertions. by virtue of its sovereignty. the same still remained. The procedure by which the escheated property may be recovered is generally prescribed by statue. 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. have the personality to be a claimant within the purview of Sec. Rule 91. it is decidedly prescribed to encourage would-be claimants to be punctilious in asserting their claims. 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. Inc. when private respondent decided to contest the escheat judgment in the guise of a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals. Brown. but a claim not made shall be barred forever. and the latter because he claims to be the lessee thereof under a contract legally entered with the former (underscoring supplied). Laguna v. In the present case. In this jurisdiction. Obviously. whereby the state. the judgment not being diluted by speculations. Inc. The Court of Appeals 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. a property is claimed by the state to forestall an open "invitation to self-service by the first comers. and Carlos Young appeared alleging to have a material interest in the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan.. a claimant to an escheated property must file his claim "within five (5) years from the date of such judgment. part of the estate of the decedent and the lower court was right not to assume otherwise. but not against those who are not parties or privies thereto. Colegio de San Jose. or in any way injure him." With the lapse of the 5-year period therefore. Escheat is a proceeding. at least before the escheat. of the Revised Rules of Court? In this regard. the Colegio de San Jose. [7] is applicable at least insofar as it concerns the Court's discussion on who is an "interested party" in an escheat proceeding In a special proceeding for escheat under sections 750 and 751 the petitioner is not the sole and exclusive interested party.

respondent Jovita San Juan-Santos. JOVITA SAN JUAN-SANTOS G.400. upon reaching the age of majority. respondent filed a petition for guardianship in the RTC of San Mateo. the proper complaints should also be filed against them for any criminal liability in connection with the dissipation of Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez’s estate and her unlawful abduction from the custody of her legal guardian. Sotero C. they unanimously opined that in view of Lulu’s intelligence level (which was below average) and fragile mental state. She alleged that Lulu was incapable of taking care of herself and managing her estate because she was of weak mind. Cecilio. because Lulu did not even finish her elementary education. In 1974. Meanwhile. Branch 76. Medical specialists testified to explain the results of Lulu’s examinations which revealed the alarming state of her health. 169217 August 7. Lulu inherited valuable real properties from the San Juan family. Petitioners are furthermore ordered to render to respondent. They likewise asserted that Lulu was literate and. TERESA C. 2009 FACTS: Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez (or Lulu) was born on February 14. claimed that the issue of Lulu’s competency had been settled in 1968 (upon her emancipation) when the court ordered her legal guardian and maternal uncle. After Maria's death. During the hearing. Lulu’s legal guardian. aware of the consequences of executing an SPA. disease. petitioners took over the task of administering Lulu's properties. half-siblings and maternal relatives. as the only child of Maria and the sole testate heir of Sotero. Lulu was found to be afflicted with tuberculosis. Unfortunately. weak mind or other similar causes are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid. She later found out that Lulu was occupying a cramped room lit by a single fluorescent lamp without running water. HELD: YES.R. to deliver the properties for her to manage. Subsequently. Thus. Furthermore.206. 166470 and G. though of sound mind but by reason of age. Lulu sought the assistance of her maternal first cousin. an accurate and faithful accounting of all the properties and funds they unlawfully appropriated for themselves from the estate of Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez. within thirty (30) days from receipt of this decision. Respondent was appalled as Lulu was severely overweight. No. Rule 92 of the Rules of Court. VICTORIA C. In 1968. Victoria to appear in court on her behalf when she was in fact unknowingly authorizing her half-sister to sell the said property to the Manila Electric Company for P18. HERNANDEZ. since determining whether or not Lulu is in fact an incompetent would require a reexamination of the evidence presented in the courts a quo. herein petitioners. for their part. Under Section 2. for that reason. ISSUE: Whether or not Lulu is an incompetent and the appointment of a judicial guardian over her person and property is necessary. Ciriaco San Juan. She confided to Jovita that she was made to live in the basement of petitioners’ home and was receiving a measly daily allowance of P400 for her food and medication.CECILIO C. Felix married Natividad Cruz. after learning that petitioners had been dissipating her estate. 1947 to the spouses Felix Hernandez and Maria San Juan Hernandez. 1951. Teresa and Ma. the latter died due to complications during childbirth. Felix allegedly purchased one of Lulu’s properties for an undisclosed amount to develop the Marilou Subdivision. MA. No. Victoria. Felix and petitioners undertook various “projects” involving Lulu’s real properties. she would not be able to care for herself and self-administer her medications. HERNANDEZ-VILLA ABRILLE and NATIVIDADCRUZ-HERNANDEZ vs. On October 2. If warranted. 1998. Thus. unkempt and smelled of urine. During the period of their informal administration (from 1968 until 1993). HERNANDEZ-SAGUN. Felix continued to exercise actual administration of Lulu’s properties. it undoubtedly involves questions of fact. Lulu was given full control of her estate.R. Rizal. . The union produced three children. respondent brought her to several physicians for medical examination. San Juan. stepmother. Due to Lulu's poor hygiene. In September 1998. Upon Felix's death in 1993. Lulu signed a special power of attorney (SPA) believing that she was authorizing Ma. Nevertheless. On December 16. are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship. The RTC and the CA both found that Lulu was incapable of taking care of herself and her properties without outside aid due to her ailments and weak mind. persons who. Felix left Lulu in the care of her maternal uncle. petitioners moved to intervene in the proceedings to oppose the same. Lulu identified and described her parents. rheumatism and diabetes from which she was suffering several complications. Lulu was presented and asked to testify on her genealogy and experiences with the San Juan and Hernandez families.

the trial court did not even observe the requirements of the summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code. In the petition. Jardeleza suffered a stroke which left him comatose and depriving him of his mental and physical capability to act.” the said provisions cannot be made to apply. upon hearing the witnesses presented by Gilda. However. subject to recourse to the court by the wife for a proper remedy which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision. the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. Thus. Thus. and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. not the summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code. 109557. 2000 Facts: Dr. the proper remedy is a judicial guardianship proceedings under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court. Court of Appeals and Teodoro Jardeleza GR No. the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person. Upon learning that the real property he owned is about to be sold. Article 124 of the Family Code provides as follows: “ART. Jardeleza is confined in an intensive care unit (ICU). In the absence of such authority or consent. the trial court found that the subject spouse "is an incompetent" who was in comatose or semi-comatose condition. without motor and mental faculties. 124. the rules on summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code govern the proceedings under Article 124 of the Family Code. Jardeleza. a spouse who desires to sell real property as such administrator of the conjugal property must observe the procedure for the sale of the ward’s estate required of judicial guardians under Rule 95. but the petition for guardianship proceedings. He also filed a Motion for Reconsideration contending that the proper remedy in the case is not the petition filed by his mother. In the said petition. administration of conjugal properties. Consequently. Teodoro filed a petition for the issuance of the letter of guardianship of his father. Days later. Gilda. or separated in fact or has abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be obtained. “In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties. comes under the heading on “Separation in Fact Between Husband and Wife” which contemplates of a situation where both spouses are of disposing mind.” In regular manner. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. the trial court did not comply with the procedure under the Revised Rules of Court. Even assuming that the rules of summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code may apply to the wife's administration of the conjugal property. He also noted that the provisions on summary proceedings. and with a diagnosis of brain stem infarct. found in Chapter 2 of the Family Code. Indeed. 1964 Revised Rules of Court. In such case. the case cannot be heard under the rules of summary proceedings as contemplated in Article 253 of the Family Code. As such. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. cerebrovascular accident. In this case. granted such petition. the RTC. the husband’s decision shall prevail. Issue: Whether the provision of Article 124 of the Family Code applies in this case when one of the spose is incapacitated to give his consent? Held: No. which happened few days after. On the same date of the hearing. and authority of sell the same. Gilda filed a petition for the declaration of incapacity of Dr. the law provides that the wife who assumes sole powers of administration has the same powers and duties as a guardian under the Rules of Court. the RTC issued a notice for hearing. In the case at bar. (165a). she prayed for such reliefs because of the increasing hospital bills due to the fact that Dr. the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. a victim of stroke.Jose Uy vs. the trial court did not serve notice of the petition to the incapacitated spouse. Such rules do not apply to cases where the nonconsenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give consent. he argued that were one spouse is “comatose without motor and mental faculties. . Upon the finding of the petition to be in form. it did not require him to show cause why the petition should not be granted. The situation contemplated is one where the spouse is absent. Teodoro filed an Opposition contending that he was unaware that the case was already decided. he prayed for the issuance of the letters of guardianship in favor of his mother and petitioner. November 29. In case of disagreement.

Alberto. FACTS: Sometime in 1964. Nelson can no longer redeem the property since the thirty day redemption period has expired and thus he remains as co-owner of the property with the Spouses Feliano.R. It also alleged that Rito had no more right to redeem since Saturnina. failed to tender the total amount of the redemption price. On 1972. being minor at the time of the sale. and her four children. Bonifacio. Corrompido with a right to repurchase within eight (8) years. Thus. he effectively ratified it. Bonifacio. The Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court stating that the sale made by Saturnina in behalf of Rito and Nelson were unenforceable. Consequently. With respect to petitioner Nelson. C. Sometime later and within the redemption period. or the management of the estate only. the legal guardian only has the plenary power of administration of the minor’s property. It was only in 1988. tendered their payment to Dr. in lieu of Alberto. petitioner Nelson retained ownership over their undivided share in the said property. The respondent Spouses averred that the petitioners are estopped from denying the sale since: (1) Rito already received his share. 162421. Albino.J. the contract as to the share of Rito was unenforceable. Accordingly. Rito received the sum of 1. It does not include the power of alienation which needs judicial authority. when he received the proceeds of the sale. However. will be held in trust by the vendee and will paid upon them reaching the age of 21. herein petitioner. ISSUE: Whether or not the sale made by a legal guardian (Saturnina) in behalf of the minors were binding upon them. and the management of his estate. Saturnina or any and all the other co-owners were not his legal guardians. the said brothers and their mother.143 pesos from the Spouses Feliano representing his share from the proceeds of the sale of the property. the contract of sale was valid. and Rito.NELSON CABALES and RITO CABALES vs. Alberto died leaving behind his wife and son. Lenora. August 31. On 1971. being his legal guardian at the time of the sale was properly vested with the right to alienate the same. Albino. and (2) Nelson. 2007 Puno. In 1986. Rito. Under Section 1. Rurfino Cabales died leaving behind a parcel of land in Southern Leyte to his wife. It was provided in the deed of sale that the shares of Nelson and Rito. He was a minor at the time of the sale. Rule 96 “A guardian shall have the care and custody of the person of his ward. as legal guardian of petitioner Rito. This act of ratification rendered the sale valid and binding as to him. the contract of sale was void. Saturnina and six children. prior to the redemption of the property. that Nelson learned of the sale from his uncle. Subsequently. HELD: With regard to the share of Rito. Francisco. Francisco and Leonora sold the said land to Spouses Feliano. Alberto and Albino sold the property to Dr. could validly sell his share in the property. x x x” Indeed. when Saturnina. Saturnina. He signified his intention to redeem the property in 1993 but it was only in 1995 that he filed a complaint for redemption against the Spouses Feliano. JESUS FELIANO and ANUNCIANO FELIANO G. COURT OF APPEALS. his right was subrogated by Saturnina upon the death of his father. rather it was his mother who if duly authorized by the courts. namely. the brothers and co-owners Bonifacio. sold the latter’s pro indiviso share in subject land. However. No. she did not have the legal authority to do so. Corrompido. . The Regional Trial Court ruled in favour of Spouses Feliano on the ground that Nelson was no longer entitled to the property since. Alberto. Nelson.