Case Digest

Special Proceedings

1.) Pacific Banking Corp. Employees Org.

G.R. 109373

Facts

On July 5, 1985, the Pacific Banking Corporation (PaBC) was placed under receivership by the
Central Bank of the Philippines. On May 17, 1991, a new Liquidator, Vitaliano N.
Nañagas, 4 President of the (PDIC), was appointed by the Central Bank.

On March 13, 1989 the Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization (Union for short),
petitioner in G.R. No. 109373, filed a complaint-in-intervention seeking payment of holiday pay,
13th month pay differential, salary increase differential, Christmas bonus, and cash equivalent
of Sick Leave Benefit due its members as employees of PaBC. In its order dated September 13,
1991, the trial court ordered payment of the principal claims of the Union.

The Liquidator received a copy of the order on September 16, 1991. On October 16, 1991, he
filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of the order. In his order of December 6,
1991, the judge modified his September 13, 1991 6 but in effect denied the Liquidator's motion
for reconsideration. This order was received by the Liquidator on December 9, 1991. The
following day, December 10, 1991, he filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Additional Time
to Submit Record on Appeal. On December 23, 1991, another Notice of Appeal was filed by the
Office of the Solicitor General in behalf of Nañagas.
In his order of February 10, 1992, respondent judge disallowed the Liquidator's Notice of Appeal
on the ground that it was late, i.e., more than 15 days after receipt of the decision.

Ang Keong Lan and E.J. Ang Int'l., private respondents in G.R. No. 112991, likewise filed claims
for the payment of investment

In his order dated September 11, 1992, respondent judge of the RTC directed the Liquidator to
pay private respondents the total amount of their claim as preferred creditors.

The Liquidator received the order on September 16, 1992. On September 30, 1992 he moved
for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the court on October 2, 1992. He received the
order denying his Motion for Reconsideration on October 5, 1992. On October 14, 1992 he filed
a Notice of Appeal from the orders of September 16, 1992 and October 2, 1992. As in the case
of the Union, however, the judge ordered the Notice of Appeal stricken off the record on the
ground that it had been filed without authority of the Central Bank and beyond 15 days. In his
order of October 28, 1992, the judge directed the execution of his September 11, 1992 order
granting the Stockholders/ Investors' claim.

Issue

Whether the case is a special proceeding where the period to file a notice to file an appeal is 30
days or it is an ordinary proceeding where the period to file a notice to file an appeal is only 15
days.

Held

Considering this distinction, a petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation should be
classified a special proceeding and not an ordinary action. Such petition does not seek the
enforcement or protection of a right nor the prevention or redress of a wrong against a party. It
does not pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from a party's wrongful act or omission nor
state a cause of action that can be enforced against any person.

What it seeks is merely a declaration by the trial court of the corporation's insolvency so that its
creditors may be able to file their claims in the settlement of the corporation's debts and
obligations. Put in another way, the petition only seeks a declaration of the corporation's debts
and obligations. Put in another way, the petition only seeks a declaration of the corporation's
state of insolvency and the concomitant right of creditors and the order of payment of their
claims in the disposition of the corporation's assets.

Contrary to the rulings of the Fourteenth Division, liquidation proceedings do not resemble
petitions for interpleader. For one, an action for interpleader involves claims on a subject matter
against a person who has no interest therein. 12 This is not the case in a liquidation proceeding
where the Liquidator, as representative of the corporation, takes charge of its assets and
liabilities for the benefit of the creditors. 13 He is thus charged with insuring that the assets of
the corporation are paid only to rightful claimants and in the order of payment provided by law.

Rather, a liquidation proceeding resembles the proceeding for the settlement of state of
deceased persons under Rules 73 to 91 of the Rules of Court. The two have a common
purpose: the determination of all the assets and the payment of all the debts and liabilities of the
insolvent corporation or the estate. The Liquidator and the administrator or executor are both
charged with the assets for the benefit of the claimants. In both instances, the liability of the
corporation and the estate is not disputed. The court's concern is with the declaration of
creditors and their rights and the determination of their order of payment.

2.) Natcher vs CA

G.R. 133000

FACTS:
1. Spouses Graciano del Rosario and Graciana Esguerra were registered owners of a
parcel of land in Manila
2. Upon the death of Graciana in 1951, Graciano, together with his six children entered into
an extrajudicial settlement of Graciana's estate
a. They adjudicated and divided among themselves the real property
b. Under the agreement: Graciano received 8/14 share while each of the six
children received 1/14 share of the said property.
3. The heirs executed and forged an "Agreement of Consolidation-Subdivision of Real
Property with Waiver of Rights"
a. they subdivided among themselves the parcel of land
4. Graciano then donated to his children, share and share alike, a portion of his interest in
the land amounting to 4,849.38 square meters leaving only 447.60 square meters
registered under Graciano's name
a. The land was further subdivided into two separate lots

i. Graciano sold the 1st lot to a third person but retained ownership over the
2nd lot
5. Graciano married petitioner Patricia Natcher
a. He sold the 2nd lot to Natcher, a title was issued under her name.
6. Graciano dies leaving his 6 children and Natcher as heirs
7. A civil case was filed a complaint before the RTC of Manila by the 6 children
a. REASONS
i. Alleging that Natcher through the employment of fraud, misrepresentation
and forgery, acquired the 2nd lot by making it appear that Graciano
executed a Deed of Sale in her favour
ii. Alleging that their legitimes have been impaired
b. ANSWER OF NATCHER: she was legally married to Graciano in 20 March 1980
and thus, under the law, she was likewise considered a compulsory heir of the
latter.
c. RTC’s RULING:
i. deed of sale executed by the late Graciano del Rosario in favor of Patricia
Natcher is prohibited by law and thus a complete nullity.
1. no evidence that a separation of property was agreed upon in the
marriage settlements or that there has been decreed a judicial
separation of property between them, the spouses are prohibited
from entering into a contract of sale
2. not a valid donation
3. can be regarded as an extension of advance inheritance of
Patricia Natcher being a compulsory heir of the deceased
8. CA’s Ruling:
a. probate court that has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution
of the estate.
b. trying an ordinary action for reconveyance / annulment of title, went beyond its
jurisdiction when it performed the acts proper only in a special proceeding for the
settlement of estate of a deceased person.

ISSUE: May a Regional Trial Court, acting as a court of general jurisdiction in an action for
reconveyance annulment of title with damages, adjudicate matters relating to the settlement of
the estate of a deceased person particularly on questions as to advancement of property made
by the decedent to any of the heirs?

HELD: NO. CA decision AFFIRMED.
1. Civil action –vs- Special Proceeding
Civil Action Special Proceedings
a formal demand of one's right in a court of as an application or proceeding to establish the
justice in the manner prescribed by the status or right of a party, or a particular fact.
court or by the law.
method of applying legal remedies no formal pleadings are required unless the
according to definite established rules statute expressly so provides.
• the remedy is granted generally upon an
application or motion
2. Special Proceedings defined:
a. American Jurisprudence: proceedings which are not ordinary in this sense, but
is instituted and prosecuted according to some special mode as in the case of
proceedings commenced without summons and prosecuted without regular
pleadings, which are characteristics of ordinary actions.

Garcia died. he owned property in Calamba. and as a mere illegitimate sister of the deceased is not entitled to succeed from him . 1976 FACTS: 1. Section 2. Generally: a probate court may not decide a question of title or ownership 1. Virginia G. 2. requires the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court. Rule 90 of the Rules of Court: as to advancement made or alleged to have been made by the deceased to any heir may be heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings. acting in its general jurisdiction. a. by petition or motion upon notice. Motion was granted. partake of the nature of a special proceeding. if the interested parties are all heirs b. and in behalf of their child: Agustina B. Branch 55 was not properly constituted as a probate court so as to validly pass upon the question of advancement made by the decedent Graciano Del Rosario to his wife g." 3. which was denied by CFI. in the nature of a distinct and independent proceeding for particular relief. 1973 Amado G. matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction. matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement of property made by the decedent.) VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE vs. an action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil action b. EXCEPTIONS: (effect= probate court is competent to decide the question of ownership. No. CAB: a. e. On May 2. a. and the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on the heir. no waiver was done by the 6 children nor did they assail the authority of the trial court. such as may be instituted independently of a pending action.) a. Preciosa B. i. to rule on this specific issue of advancement made by the decedent to petitioner. 3.R. wife of deceased. On April 26. 1973. L-40502 November 29. i. ii. Fule filed with CFI Laguna a petition for letters of administration and ex parte appointment as special administratix over the estate. Laguna. CA G. Preciosa alleged that Fule was a creditor of the estate. there was an allegation that the wife was Carolina Carpio 3. parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired. Garcia opposed. Garcia. the RTC of Manila. c. d. question is one of collation or advancement c. RTC is devoid of authority to render an adjudication and resolve the issue of advancement of the real property in favor of Natcher in the case for reconveyace and annulment of title with damages f. the present issue is a mere question of procedure which may be waived i.

Preciosa became special administratrix upon a bond of P30k. but Preciosa did not waive it. The jurisdiction assumed by a court." That power or authority is not altered or changed by procedure.) Venue v. jurisdiction over the subject matter is another. or of the location of his estate. merely requested for alternative remedy to assert her rights as surviving spouse. whether a citizen or an alien. his will shall be proved. . situs of assets. in the original case. and should allege all the necessary facts such as death. except in an appeal from that court. it is just a matter of method.” Fule’s own submitted Death Certificate shows that the deceased resided in QC at the time of his death. The appearance of this provision in the procedural law at once raises a strong presumption that it has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. Procedure is one thing. shall not be contested in a suit or proceedings. this does not amount to a loss of jurisdiction over the subject matter. so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent. of convenience to the parties. CA reversed and annulled the appointment of Fule.) What does the word “resides” in Revised Rules of Court Rule 73 Section 1 Mean? c. or letters of administration granted. therefore the venue of Laguna was improper. And if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country. ISSUES: a. creditor or otherwise to be appointed. Venue is subject to waiver (RULE 4 SECTION 4). 4. existence. because such legal provision is contained in a law of procedure dealing merely with procedural matters. In plain words. It could not have been intended to define the jurisdiction over the subject matter. purely.) RULE 73 SECTION 1. However. and his estate settled at the CFI in the province in which he resides at the time of his death. right of person who seeks administration as next of kin. “if the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death. RULE 79 SECTION 2. Rather. name. The court 1st taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.) Who is entitled? HELD/RATIO: a. jurisdiction b. last residence. demands that the petition should show the existence of jurisdiction to make the appointment sought. which simply directs the manner in which the power or authority shall be fully and justly exercised. the CFI of any province in which he had estate. or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. a. the court attempting to exercise it loses the power to exercise it legally. There are cases though that if the power is not exercised conformably with the provisions of the procedural law. intestacy. it means that the court may thereby lose jurisdiction over the person or that the judgment may thereby be rendered defective for lack of something essential to sustain it. The power or authority of the court over the subject matter "existed and was fixed before procedure in a given cause began.

. actual residence or place of abode . One such agreement is the right of way which Anita refueses to give. Section 2 requires residence not legal residence 4. Anita. Settled is the rule that a probate court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. 5. FACTS: 1. A compromise agreement was entered into the parties whereby the estate of Lourdes was partitioned. 3. 6. among others. . 4. ISSUE: WON RTC as a probate court has jurisdiction over the issue of right of way . Reyes (2010) Petitioner: Anita Reyes-Mesugas Respondent: Alejandro Aquino Reyes DOCTRINE: Extent of jurisdiction of the probate court. Anita and Alejandro are children of Pedro and Lourdes Reyes. three parcels of land.Elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. Alejandro opposed. 7. actual or physical habitation of a person.Popular sense – the personal. RTC approved said partition.) Reyes-Mesugas v. 2. MR also denied. Pedro and Arturo (another siblng) opposed the petition. RTC denied Anita’s motion.b. It approves contracts entered into for and on behalf of the estate or the heirs to it but this is by fiat of the Rules of Court.Same meaning as “inhabitant”. It acts on matters pertaining to the estate but never on the rights to property arising from the contract.) Resides – ex vi termini “actual residence” . Alejandro filed a petition for the settlement of the estate of Lourdes. claiming that there are side agreements yet to be fulfilled between them. praying for his appointment as administrator due to alleged irregularities and fraudulent transactions by the other heirs.Must be more than temporary Distinguished from “legal residence or domicile” – requires bodily presence and an intention to make it one’s domicile. Lourdes died intestate. Anita filed a motion to cancel lis pendens (parcel of land to be shared by Anita and Alejandro) in view of the finality of judgment in the settlement of the estate. leaving to her heirs.

5. Sampaloc. Belen Rocalina. 1992. Amalia Manalo. Troadio Manalo left several real properties located in Manila and in the province of Tarlac including a business under the name and style Manalo's Machine Shop with offices at No. as administrator thereof. CA FACTS: Troadio Manalo. it brought to a close the intestate proceedings and the probate court lost jurisdiction over the case.RULING + RATIO: NONE A judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is immediately executory as there is no appeal from such judgment. As such. Purita. Orlando Manalo and Imelda Manalo. the settlement of the estate proceeding came to an end. 1992. At the time of his death on February 14. 19 Calavite Street. The compromise agreement did not mention the grant of a right of way to respondent. It approves contracts entered into for and on behalf of the estate or the heirs to it but this is by fiat of the Rules of Court. Romeo. namely. namely: Purita M. Troadio Manalo. It is apparent therefore that when the RTC approved the compromise agreement. a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled when the annotation is not necessary to protect the title of the party who caused it to be recorded. Belen M. Acuin. Pilar S. La Loma. Metro Manila. except only as regards to the compliance and the fulfillment by the parties of their respective obligations under the compromise agreement. who are eight (8) of the surviving children of the late Troadio Manalo. and for the appointment of their brother. and Imelda filed a petition with the respondent Regional Trial Court of Manila of the judicial settlement of the estate of their late father. Roberto. Manalo. Arty Subdivision. Rosalina M. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals erred in upholding the questioned orders of the respondent trial court which denied their motion for the outright dismissal of the petition for . Terre. Milagros. It acts on matters pertaining to the estate but never on the rights to property arising from the contract. Milagros M. Orillano. 45 General Tinio Street. herein respondents.) Manalo vs. such action constitutes an implied waiver of the right to appeal against the said decision Settled is the rule that a probate court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. When both parties enter into an agreement to end a pending litigation and request that a decision be rendered approving said agreement. who are all of legal age. More importantly. Roberto Manalo. 1992. Amalia. Romeo Manalo. Isabelita Manalo. a resident of 1996 Maria Clara Street. Moreover. On November 26. Valenzuela. Quezon City and at NO. Jayme. Romeo Manalo. Having established that the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Lourdes came to an end upon the RTCs promulgation of a decision. Antonio Manalo. He was survived by his wife. the order of the probate court approving the compromise had the effect of directing the delivery of the residue of the estate of Lourdes to the persons entitled thereto under the compromise agreement. Manila died intestate on February 14. Any agreement other than the judicially approved compromise agreement between the parties was outside the limited jurisdiction of the probate court. and his eleven (11) children.

The said petition contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate of a deceased person such as the fat of death of the late Troadio Manalo on February 14. Herein petitioners may not validly take refuge under the provisions of Rule 1. Herein petitioners argue that even if the petition in SP. it would not be too difficult to have a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple strategem. Section 2 of the Rules of Court which provides that the' rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just. as in the case at bar.PROC No. or petition. as well as the concomitant nature of an action. No. shall be controlling. If it were otherwise. The petition is SP. Section 1(j) of the Rules of Court vis-à-vis Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines would nevertheless apply as a ground for the dismissal of the same by virtue of rule 1. No. PROC. HELD: Herein petitioners claim that the petition in SP. So it should be in the instant petition for settlement of estate. 92-63626 is actually an ordinary civil action involving members of the same family. siting as a probate court. speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceedings.PROC. PROC. Section 2.judicial settlement of estate despite the failure of the petitioners therein to aver that earnest efforts toward a compromise involving members of the same family have been made prior to the filling of the petition but that the same have failed. has limited and special jurisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which may be properly threshed out only in an ordinary civilaction. the averments and the character of the relief sought in the complaint. the relief's prayed for in the said petition leave no room for doubt as regard the intention of the petitioners therein (private respondents herein) to seek judicial settlement of the estate of their deceased father. of the Rules of Court to justify the invocation of Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines for the dismissal of the petition for settlement of the estate of the deceased Troadio Manalo inasmuch as the latter provision is clear enough. is determined by the averments in the complaint and not by the defenses contained in the answer. whether at law or in equity. as well as his residence in the City of Manila at the time of his said death. 92-63626 belies herein petitioners' claim that the same is in the nature of an ordinary civil action.' Petitioners contend that the term "proceeding" is so broad that it must necessarily include special proceedings. 92-63626 also contains an enumeration of the names of his legal heirs including a tentative list of the properties left by the deceased which are sought to be settled in the probate proceedings. Rule 16. . the rule has always been to the effect that the jurisdiction of a court. This is clear from the term 'suit' that it refers to an action by one person or persons against another or other in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right. In addition. It must be emphasized that the trial court.92-63626 were to be considered as a special proceeding for the settlement of estate of a deceased person. Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. No. A careful srutiny of the Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration. Settlement and Distribution of Estate in SP. It is a fundamental rule that in the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding. 1992. The argument is misplaced. Troadio Manalo. It is our view that herein petitioners may not be allowed to defeat the purpose of the essentially valid petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Troadio Manalo by raising matters that as irrelevant and immaterial to the said petition. The fact of death of the decedent and of his residence within he country are foundation facts upon which all the subsequent proceedings in the administration of the estate rest. In addition.

Costs against petitioners. The CA ruled that there was a failure to prove that Danila was in the presence of the instrumental witnesses when she signed the will – this was because two of the instrumental witnesses (Sarmiento and Paz) testified in court that the will was already signed by Danila when they affixed their signatures. Section 4. The trial court allowed the intervention and set aside the compromise agreement. 24475 was deemed cancelled by virtue of Section 77 of PD No. Recording the order of partition of estate. WHEREFORE. The two oppositors claimed that they were the legally adopted children of Danila. In line with the recording of the order for the partition of the estate. The two parties talked and they came up with a compromise agreement which essentially stated that Nista is admitting the invalidity of the will. Vda. The decision was appealed by the Guerras. . Rule 90 of the Rules of Court. that the said will sought to be probated by Nista was obtained through fraud. the notice of lis pendens inscribed on TCT No. 2000 decision was recorded in the Registry of Deeds of Rizal pursuant to Section 4. decision based on the compromise agreement. . Cancellation of Lis Pendens xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx At any time after final judgment in favor of the defendant. Thus. 6. when the September 13. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the probate court. Rule 90 of the Rules of Court provides: Sec. the notice of lis pendens shall be deemed cancelled upon the registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the manner of disposal thereof. Ramos vs CA Facts: The late Eugenia Danila left a will wherein she instituted among others Adelaida Nista as one of the instituted heirs.SO ORDERED. the probate court admitted the will to probate. paragraph 2. in any case in which a memorandum or notice of lis pendens has been registered as provided in the preceding section. is DENIED for lack of merit. The petition was opposed by Buenaventura Guerra and Marcelina Guerra. 4. 1529. 1529[21] provides: Section 77. the petition in the above-entitled case. Rosario de Ramos et al alleged that the Guerras repudiated their shares when they abandoned Danila and committed acts of ingratitude against her.the petitioners therein (private respondents herein) merely seek to establish the fat of death of their father and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of the said deceased so that they can validly exercise their right to participate in the settlement and liquidation of the estate of the decedent consistent with the limited and special jurisdiction of the probate court. The compromise agreement was approved by the trial court BUT Rosario de Ramos et al – the other instituted heirs and devisees – intervened. Nista petitioned before the court to admit the will to probate. Eventually. Section 77 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. or other disposition of the action such as to terminate finally all rights of the plaintiff in and to the land and/or buildings involved.Certified copies of final orders and judgments of the court relating to the real estate or the partition thereof shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the province where the property is situated.

be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses and from all the evidence presented that the will was executed and attested in the manner required by law. Another lawyer. Atty. is entitled to greater weight than the testimony of a person casually called to participate in the act. HELD: No. Barcenas. Petitioners after 4 months filed a motion for the reopening of the probate proceedings . is more likely to become fixed on details. CYNTHIA C. vs. tell only half-truths to mislead the court or favor one party to the prejudice of the others. 2005. and he is more likely than other persons to retain those incidents in his memory. In fact. As a rule. heard or did.HOWEVER. No. The attestation clauses. nevertheless. the will may. TINGA. In weighing the testimony of the attesting witnesses to a will. ALABAN. to avoid substitution of the will and testament. September 23. This serves as their admissions of the due execution of the will and thus preventing them from prevaricating later on by testifying against the will’s due execution. Ricardo Barcenas. The object is to close the door against bad faith and fraud. far from being deficient. respondent Francisco Provido filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado A. corroborated the testimony of Atty.:] FACTS: 1. or do not remember having attested to it. vehemently assailed the testimony of the two witnesses. There has been no evidence to show that Barcenas has been remiss in his duty nor were there any allegations of fraud against him. There is a presumption in the regularity of the performance of a lawyer with his duty as a notary public. B. the Notary Public before whom the will was executed and who assisted in the execution. Subscribing witnesses may forget or exaggerate what they really know. if any or all of the subscribing witnesses testify against the due execution of the will. 7. Neither is it disputed that these witnesses took turns in signing the will and codicil in the presence of each other and the testatrix. and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. supposing of course that no motive is revealed that should induce the attorney to prevaricate. the statements of a competent attorney. or are otherwise of doubtful credibility. who was also present during the execution of the will. the authenticity of Danila’s and the witnesses’ signature was never questioned. saw. therefore. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct in not allowing the will to probate. The reason is that the mind of the attorney being conversant of the instrument. The execution of the same was evidently supervised by Atty. He affirmed Danila and the three instrumental witnesses were in each other’s presence when the will was signed by them. COURT OF APPEALS [G. RTC’s RULING: allowed the probate of the will and directed the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent 2. who has been charged with the responsibility of seeing to the proper execution of the instrument. they may be biased and. The attestation clause was signed by the instrumental witnesses. Both instruments were duly acknowledged before a Notary Public who was all the time present during the execution. Ricardo Barcenas and before whom the deeds were also acknowledged. ALLEGATION: he was the heir of the decedent and the executor of her will. were properly signed by the attesting witnesses.R. J. 156021. The solemnity surrounding the execution of a will is attended by some intricacies not usually within the comprehension of an ordinary layman.

or other appropriate remedies through no fault of their own ISSUE: W/N the allowance of the will to probate should be annulled for failure to mention the petitioners as parties HELD: No 1. E) the decedent had no intention to make a will at the time of affixing of her signature. B. The ruling became final and executor because the motion was filed out of time b. petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed. 3) will could not have been probated because: A) the signature of the decedent was forged. CLAIMs: 1) they are the intestate heirs of the decedent. defective publication. or any other person interested in the estate may. petition for annulment of judgment must still fail for failure to comply with the substantive requisites. having included in the will properties which no longer belonged to her. Under the Rules of Court. RTC’s Ruling: denied motion 1) petitioners were deemed notified of the hearing by publication and that the deficiency in the payment of docket fees is not a ground for the outright dismissal of the petition.[37] as well as furnished to the designated or other known heirs. B) the will was not executed in accordance with law. D) the will was executed by force and under duress and improper pressure. the witnesses failed to sign below the attestation clause. at any time after the death of the testator. CLAIM: there was a compromise agreement between petitioners and respondents and they learnt the probate proceeding only in July 2001 B. and F) she did not know the properties to be disposed of. CA’s RULING: petition dismissed 1) no showing that petitioners failed to avail of or resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial. or legatee named in a will. 2) RTC’s Decision was already final and executory even before petitioners’ filing of the motion to reopen 3. legatees. The filing of motion to reopen is similar to a motion for new trial a. A. appeal. 3. any executor.[36] Notice of the time and place for proving the will must be published for three (3) consecutive weeks. Petitioners became parties due to the publication of the notice of hearing 2. C) the decedent lacked testamentary capacity to execute and publish a will. Given that they knew of the decision 4 months after they could have filed a petition for relief from judgment after the denial of their motion to reopen. petition for relief from judgment. and devisees of the testator b. in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. that is. Probate of a will is considered action in rem a. and lack of notice to the other heirs. Petitioners filed a petition to annule RTC’s decision A. 2) RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition due to non-payment of the correct docket fees. devisee. .

An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character i. she designated her brother. An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered b. No.) IN RE: PALAGANAS v. On May 19. filed with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos.S. 26 January 2011 Abad. legatees. J. PURPOSE: to have the final and executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. Bulacan. will may be probated in and allowed by a court in the Philippines. opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U. and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process d. 4. Gloria Villaluz and Sergio. a. 2004 the RTC issued an order: (a) admitting to probate Ruperta’s last will. where she executed it. the will states that the respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the decedent thus he has no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate or personally notify them 8. notice is required to be personally given to known heirs. died single and childless. which it granted. ERNESTO PALAGANAS G. 2003 respondent Ernesto C. and (c) issuing the Letters of Special Administration to Ernesto. Palaganas. nephews of Ruperta. Ernesto. since Ruperta’s foreign-based siblings. a petition for the probate of Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as special administrator of her estate. On April. it is invalid nonetheless for having been executed under duress and without the testator’s full understanding of the consequences of such act. Palaganas. as the executor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the US.S. 2001 Ruperta C. (b) appointing respondent Ernesto as special administrator at the request of Sergio. respondent Ernesto filed a motion with the RTC for leave to take their deposition. or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. . In the last will and testament she executed in California. On June 17. Meantime. Palaganas. Manuel and Benjamin added that.S. Extrinsic if it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court. assuming Ruperta’s will could be probated in the Philippines. were on separate occasions in the Philippines for a short visit. another brother of Ruperta. Sergio C.R. the U.: FACTS On November 8. petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas. however. 169144. is also not qualified to act as administrator of the estate. 13. On October 15. and devisees of the testator a.-based executor designated in the will. 2004 the RTC directed the parties to submit their memorandum on the issue of whether or not Ruperta’s U. they claimed. 2 Grounds: extrinsic fraud. a Filipino who became a naturalized United States citizen. 2003. c.

Aggrieved by the RTC’s order. RULING Yes. affirming the assailed order of the RTC. it cannot be made to apply to the present case. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. petitioner nephews Manuel and Benjamin appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). VS. Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of Court. [G. In reprobate. before it can be probated in the Philippines. 2010] 9. reprobate or re-authentication of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign country is different from that probate where the will is presented for the first time before a competent court. DECISION NACHURA. Unsatisfied with the decision. arguing that an unprobated will executed by an American citizen in the U. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides. Contrary to petitioners’ stance. The CA pointed out that Section 2. No. Rule 76 of the Rules of Court does not require prior probate and allowance of the will in the country of its execution. on the presumed will of . Reprobate is governed by different rules or procedures. In insisting that Ruperta’s will should have been first probated and allowed by the court of California. J.R. ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY. holding that the RTC properly allowed the probate of the will. Manuel and Benjamin came to this Court. the local court acknowledges as binding the findings of the foreign probate court provided its jurisdiction over the matter can be established. subject to respondent Ernesto’s submission of the authenticated copies of the documents specified in the order and his posting of required bond.S. But. petitioners Manuel and Benjamin obviously have in mind the procedure for the reprobate of will before admitting it here. On July 29. which refers to a will already probated and allowed abroad.) IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF CRISTINA AGUINALDO-SUNTAY. said the CA. or according to the formalities observed in his country.. cannot be probated for the first time in the Philippines. ISSUE Whether or not a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the Philippines although it has not been previously probated and allowed in the country where it was executed. The present case.. is different from reprobate. since this latter rule applies only to reprobate of a will. Doctrine: The law [of intestacy] is founded. 2005 the CA rendered a decision. 183053 : June 15.

In marked contrast. the decedent. Emilio III. being the "next of kin" referred to by Section 6. revoked the Letters of Administration issued to Emilio III. lived with their mother on Balete Drive. On October 26. ~ In 1979. 1995. Emilio III and Nenita 7. as administrator of the decedent’s estate on his behalf. Consequently. respondent is preferred. it is said. In the course of the proceedings. Emilio I’s marriage to Isabel Cojuangco was subsequently annulled. 6. respectively. Federico filed a petition for visitation rights over his grandchildren. Isabel. respondent filed an appeal before the CA. he must be accorded legal preference in the administration 8. Emilio I. 11. Quezon City. Federico filed a Manifestation dated March 13. after the death of his spouse. Federico’s appointment as administrator of the estate ii.e. Certainly. nominating his adopted son. appointing herein petitioner. i. Federico filed his opposition. separately from their father and paternal grandparents. Concepcion Mendoza and Isabel Santos. Thereafter. by two different women. Emilio I had two children out of wedlock.. The trial court rendered a decision on November 9. articulating her sentiments on the unwanted visits of her grandparents. ~ At the time of her death. Cristina was survived by her husband. the CA zeroed in on Emilio III’s status as an illegitimate child of Emilio I and. finally. Federico died. 9. The Court honestly believes that to appoint the petitioner would go against the wishes of the decedent who raised [Emilio III] from infancy in her home in Baguio City as her own child. 10. as administrator of decedent Cristina’s intestate estate. 1993. respondent and her siblings Margarita and Emilio II. and they begot three children. Emilio Aguinaldo Suntay (Emilio I). spreads sideways. 2001. Federico Suntay (Federico). On June 4. Federico. Cristina. he is capable of administering her estate and he should be the one appointed as its administrator. the trial court granted Emilio III’s Motion for Leave to Intervene considering his interest in the outcome of the case. it would go against the wishes of the surviving spouse x x x who nominated [Emilio III] for appointment as administrator. 4. Margarita.the deceased. Emilio III. barred from representing his deceased father in the estate of the latter’s legitimate mother. It was altogether stopped because of a manifestation filed by respondent Isabel. which reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC.What matters most at this time is the welfare of the estate of the decedent in the light of such unfortunate and bitter estrangement. Facts: 1. adopted their illegitimate grandchildren.. respondent filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor. on November 13..M. then ascends. their only son. 1990. Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay (Cristina). After a failed attempt by the parties to settle the proceedings amicably. the decedent. 1999. Emilio III and Nenita Suntay Tañedo (Nenita). after the death of Emilio I. After her spouse’s death. Rule 78 of the Rules of Court . and several grandchildren. that as part owner of the mass of conjugal properties left by Cristina. thus. and. 5. Emilio I was married to Isabel Cojuangco. or on September 27. Aggrieved. Parenthetically. Being the surviving spouse of Cristina. married to Dr. died intestate. Suntay III (Emilio III) and respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay 2. The appointment of Emilio III was subject to a suspensive condition. Federico. predeceased both Cristina and Federico. including herein petitioner Emilio A. Subsequently. namely: herein respondent. That he cannot be appointed for the ff reasons: i. As between the legitimate offspring (respondent) and illegitimate offspring (Emilio III) of decedent’s son. and Emilio II 3. 2000. first descends. Love.

and the unliquidated conjugal partnership of Cristina and Federico which forms part of their respective estates. the subject estate in this case calls to the succession other putative heirs.i. and eventually legally adopted by decedent's husband.. in fact.. is quite the opposite scenario in the facts obtaining herein for the actual relationship between Federico and Cristina. we are impelled to move in only one direction. Similarly. ISSUE : A. Margarita and Emilio II. The . Cristina. is better qualified to act as administrator of the decedent's estate. love first descends. iii. legally raised the status of Emilio III from an illegitimate grandchild to that of a legitimate child. One final note. an illegitimate grandchild of the decedent. considering the conflicting claims of the putative heirs. WHETHER ARTICLE 992 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE APPLIES SO AS TO BAR HIM FROM BEING APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE The pivotal issue: Who. for the decedent. who. on one hand. especially in cases where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the estates. as between Emilio III and respondent. joint administration of the subject estate. was akin to the normal relationship of legitimate relatives. reared from infancy. the original oppositor to respondent's petition for letters of administration. the factual antecedents of this case accurately reflect the basis of intestate succession. Nenita Tañedo. does not apply in this instance where facts indubitably demonstrate the contrary .Emilio III. on the other. and B. did not distinguish between her legitimate and illegitimate grandchildren.e. the successional bar between the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of a decedent. Federico. Jurisprudence has consistently held that Article 992 of the Civil Code bars the illegitimate child from inheriting ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. but who was likewise adopted by Federico. including another illegitimate grandchild of Cristina and Federico. a situation which obtains here. and the two (2) siblings of respondent Isabel. IN THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE UNDER SECTION 6 OF RULE 78 OF THE RULES OF COURT. and Emilio III. The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co- administrators. i. WHETHER ARTICLE 992 OF THE CIVIL CODE APPLIES. Ruling: The basis for Article 992 of the Civil Code. In the appointment of an administrator.e. referred to as the iron curtain bar rule. Neither did her husband. Indeed. Counsel for petitioner meticulously argues that Article 992 of the Civil Code. was actually treated by the decedent and her husband as their own son. UNDER THE UNDISPUTED FACTS WHERE HEREIN PETITIONER WAS REARED BY THE DECEDENT AND HER SPOUSE SINCE INFANCY. educated and trained in their businesses. the principal consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be appointed. In all.

and. Plaintiffs contend. Letters of Administration over the estate of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay shall issue to both petitioner Emilio A. Branch 78. No costs. Bulacan. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. NT-66311 was issued to the vendees. Apolonia Valiente and Federico Ila.) Lindain vs. 10.peculiar circumstances of this case. TCT No. The Deed of Absolute Sale was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Nueva Ecija. Malolos. has already prescribed. the petition is GRANTED. and all other persons with legal interest in the subject estate. Dolores Luluquisin. sold the land forP2. the youngest being 31 years old at the time of the filing of the complaint. Oscar. their right to rescind the contract which should have been exercised four(4) years after reaching the age of majority. Court of Appeals [August 20. Bulacan is likewise directed to make a determination and to declare the heirs of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay according to the actual factual milieu as proven by the parties.000. The vendee admitted that they knew that the property belonged to the minors.M. RTC ruled in favor of the of the plaintiffs Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. that the sale of the lot by their mother to the defendants is null and void because it was made without judicial authority and/or court approval.R. CV No. 74949 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court. then already a widow and acting as guardian of her minor children. 1966 – their mother.000 under a Deed of Absolute Sale of Registered Land to the spouses Apolonia Valiente and Federico Ila (Defendants). The defendants contend that the sale was valid. dispose of the child's property without judicial . 1992] Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals Facts: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated August 8. Suntay III and respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay upon payment by each of a bond to be set by the Regional Trial Court. Dela Cruz which held that a father or mother acting as legal administrator of the property of the child under parental authority cannot. It is further directed to settle the estate of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay with dispatch. Celia and Teresita (Plaintiffs) were still minors they were already the registered owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1990 of the Court of Appeals which dismissed the complaint for annulment of a sale of registered land. in Special Proceeding Case No. painstakingly pointed out by counsel for petitioner. Malolos. as the value of the property was less than P2. NT-63540 November 7. 117-M-95. overthrow the legal presumption in Article 992 of the Civil Code that there exist animosity and antagonism between legitimate and illegitimate descendants of a deceased. WHEREFORE. thereby reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose City When Elena. therefore. considering the ages of plaintiffs now. Branch 78. The court cited the case of Ortanez vs. however.

YES Ratio: Art 320 of the new civil code: The father. Civil Code). and garage fees. or in his absence the mother. the permission of the court for its alienation or disposition may be dispensed with.authority if it is worth more than P2. But when the value of such property is less than P2. The minors' action for reconveyance has not yet prescribed for "real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years" (Art. If the property is worth more than two thousand pesos. Suguitan – under article 320 the mother as legal administrator had no power to compromise their claims. is the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the child under parental authority.00. General Powers and Duties of Executors and Administrators are only powers of possession and management. the father or mother shall give a bond subject to the approval of the Court of First Instance. Later. and she should have first secured court approval before alienation of the property. Angel Brazil and Ernesto Pagaygay were jeepney drivers of jeepneys owned by Melencio Gabriel. Her power to sell. for compromise has always deemed equivalent to alienation. Under article 320 a parent acts merely as the legal administrator of the property of the minor children and does not have the power to dispose of or alienate the property of the children. as her powers as the natural guardian covers only matters of administration and cannot include the power of disposition. as the case may be. Since the sale took place in 1966. mortgage. subject only to the restrictions imposed by the scruples of conscience Issue: WON the judicial approval is necessary for the sale of the minors’ property by their mother. Ferrer - Surviving widow has no authority or has acted beyond her powers in conveying to the vendees the undivided share of her minor children in the property. 11. car wash. Badillo vs. They are paying P400/day for their boundary. parents. notwithstanding the bond that he has filed for the protection of the child's property. The Court's approval is necessary in compromises entered into by guardians. is allowed by law to alienate or dispose of the same freely. Visaya vs.00 to cover police protection. 000. encumber or otherwise dispose of the property of her minor children must proceed from the court.) Gabriel vs Bilon Facts Nelson Bilon. 000. 1141. . as provided in Rule 89 which requires court authority and approval. The father or mother. the drivers were required to pay an additional P50. without judicial approval. deposit fee.00. the action to recover the property had not yet prescribed when the petitioners sued in 1987. absentee's representatives and administrators or executors of decedent's estates.

and that the only solution is separation and the payment of separation pay. 83484 February 12. On April 18. 2. The copy was re-sent via registered mail on May 28. et al. G. The ten day requirement to make an appeal is not applicable in this situation because Gabriel was not yet properly substituted by the wife. 1997. Flordeliza appealed to the LA on June 5. The Strained Relations Principle is only applied if it is shown that reinstatement would only cause antagonism between the employer and the employee. It was not shown that there was a strained relationship between Gabriel and the drivers so as to cause animosity if they are reinstated. 12. it ruled that the appeal was not on time because the promulgation was made on April 18.03M. 2. ISSUES: 1. There exists an employer-employee relationship between the drivers and Gabriel. HELD: 1. 3. the appeal filed on June 5 was made on time. Yes. The appeal was made on time because when the promulgation was made Gabriel is already dead.R. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only whatever exceeds the so-called “boundary” [that] they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee. On April 30. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the drivers and ordered Gabriel to pay the drivers their backwages and their separation pay amounting to about a total of P1. No. The counting of the period should be made starting from the date when the copy was sent via registered mail. Yes. The LA dismissed the appeal.00.The three drivers refused to pay the additional P50. 1997. the LA promulgated its decision and on the same day sent a copy thereof to Gabriel but Flordeliza (wife of Gabriel) refused to receive the copy.) Solivio vs.. No. they were not given any jeepney to drive. 1990 Collateral Relatives . the employees should be reinstated. 1995. they were dismissed. 1997 was already beyond the ten day period required for appeal. Gabriel died on April 4. Whether or not there was a strained relation between Gabriel and the drivers. The award of the separation pay is not proper. when the drivers reported to work. 1997. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC but it ruled that the separation pay should not be awarded but rather. 1997 and that the appeal on June 5. Apparently. 3. Therefore. Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between the drivers and Gabriel. Whether or not the appeal before the LA was made on time. Eventually. Court of Appeals. The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the LA. 1997. The three drivers sued Gabriel for illegal dismissal. It ruled that there was no employee-employer relationship between the drivers and Gabriel.

Salustia brought to her marriage paraphernal properties which she had inherited from her mother. Jr. Jr. On October 11. the spinster half-sister of his mother. Pursuant to their agreement that Celedonia would take care of the proceedings leading to the formation of the foundation. HELD: The Court heldthat the property of the deceased. Sr. including a house and lot in La Paz. filed for her appointment as special administratrix of the estate of Esteban Javellana. Gregoria Celo. sisters. Concordia and Celedonia talked about what to do with Esteban's properties. Salustia Solivio. Jr. Salustia died. he did not hold his inheritance subject to a reservation in favor of his aunt. and (2) the private respondent. His only surviving relatives are: (1) his maternal aunt. The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or a brother ora . Iloilo City. Concordia Javellana Villanueva filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order declaring Celedonia as "sole heir" of Esteban. Jr. was not an ascendant. Celedonia in good faith and upon the advice of her counsel. sister of his deceased father. In due time. without descendants. her motion was denied by the court for tardiness. is not reservable property. Sr. During his lifetime. ascendants. nephews or nieces. Salustia Solivio. Celedonia Solivio. his relative within the third degree on his mother's side from whom he had inherited them.. Jr. Concordia agreed to carry out the plan of the deceased.. who died a bachelor. who is his relative within the third degree on his mother’s side. ISSUE: Whether the decedent's properties were subject to reserva troncal in favor of Celedonia. Unfortunately. had. 1978. Two weeks after his funeral. expressed to his aunt Celedonia and some close friends his plan to place his estate in a foundation to honor his mother and to help poor but deserving students obtain a college education. for Esteban. Esteban. Instead of appealing the denial.FACTS: This case involves the estate of the late novelist. Celedonia told Concordia about Esteban's desire to place his estate in a foundation to be named after his mother. petitioner Celedonia Solivio.. Celedonia brought up Esteban. Esteban.Trial court rendered judgment in favor of Concordia Javellana-Villanueva. recovery of possession. Engracio Solivio's first wife but no conjugal property was acquired during her short-lived marriage to Esteban. Concordia Javellana-Villanueva. She was declared sole heir of the estate of Esteban Javellana. brothers. Jr. Jr. Jr. Jr. from whom his properties came. for the purpose of helping indigent students in their schooling. Therefore. leaving all her properties to her only child. where she. because she too was an heir of the deceased. On October 27.. he died of a heart attack without having set up the foundation. and her sister lived. Jr. Salustia and her sister. the titles of all these properties were transferred in the name of Esteban. Concordia for partition. 1959. her son. from whom he inherited the properties in question. ownership and damages. Esteban Javellana. but the descendant of his mother. more than once. Esteban Javellana. Esteban Javellana.

b. Where partition is possible. questions as to what property belonged to the deceased (and therefore to the heirs) may properly be ventilated in the partition proceedings. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS [G. 1989. vs. 2. a. deceased left several properties v. Andres de Guzman Pereira. deceased left no will iii. GANCAYCO. the herein private respondent. . It has been uniformly held that in such case the judicial administration and the appointment of an administrator are superfluous and unnecessary proceedings .sister. CA: appointed Rita Pereira Nagac administratrix of the intestate estate ISSUE: Is a judicial administration proceeding necessary when the decedent dies intestate without leaving any debts? HELD: 1. a. No. J. that same objective could be achieved in an action for partition and the trial court is not justified in issuing letters of administration. Nagac filed before RTC for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor pertaining to the estate of the deceased Andres de Guzman Pereira. REASONS: i. 2. and his sister Rita Pereira Nagac. what constitutes "good reason" to warrant a judicial administration of the estate of a deceased when the heirs are all of legal age and there are no creditors will depend on the circumstances of each case.R. b. the letters of administration relating to the said estate be issued in her favor as the surviving spouse. the estate should not be burdened with an administration proceeding without good and compelling reasons. L-81147 June 20. It does not apply to property inherited by a descendant from his ascendant. the spouse of the deceased had been working in London as an auxiliary nurse and as such one-half of her salary forms part of the estate of the deceased. GENERAL RULE: when a person dies leaving property. c.) VICTORIA BRINGAS PEREIRA. 13. EXCEPTION: when all the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from the estate. the reverse of the situation covered by Art.:] FACTS: 1. he and Victoria Bringas Pereira are the only surviving heirs of the deceased ii. the herein petitioner Victoria Bringas Pereira. 891. 3. the same should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator a. either in or out of court. passed away without a will a. especially where such property is in the hands of one heir. merely to avoid a multiplicity of suits since the heir seeking such appointment wants to ask for the annulment of certain transfers of property. Victoria opposed: there exists no estate of the deceased for purposes of administration and praying in the alternative. an employee of the Philippine Air Lines. survived by his legitimate spouse of ten months. there are no creditors of the deceased iv. that if an estate does exist. RULING: appointed Rita Pereira Nagac administratrix of the intestate estate 3. they may agree in writing to partition the property without instituting the judicial administration or applying for the appointment of an administrator. a.

.) PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA) V. As provided in the Rules of Court. the case at bar. persons unduly deprived of their lawful participation in a settlement may assert their claim only w/in the 2-year period after the settlement and distribution of the estate. This method of acquiring property created a constructive trust in favor of the defrauded party and grants them the right to vindicate regardless of the lapse of time. Thus. c. However. Victorino Cuizon among others covered by an OCT. Said RTC approved the compromise Agreement b/w the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) and Igot-Soroño et al wherein EPZA would pay a certain amount in exchange for the subject property. this prescriptive period will not apply to those who had not been notified of the settlement. EPZA acquired title to said land by virtue of the RTC decision and was issued a corresponding TCT. The Private respondents are deemed to have been notified of the extrajudicial settlement since it was registered and annotated on the certificate of title over the lot. to have legal capacity to appear in the intestate proceedings 14. ISSUE/S: 1) Whether or not private respondent’s claim over the expropriated land has prescribed 2) Whether or not reconveyance lies against expropriated property HELD: 1) YES. EPZA filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription and was denied thus elevated the case to the CA wherein the CA ruled that the heirs of Igot-Soroño defrauded the other heirs by falsely representing that they were the only heirs enabling them to appropriate the land in favor of EPZA. through which they were issued a TCT. Sometime thereafter. The Heirs of the Florentina Rapaya and Juan Cuizon filed a complaint to nullify several documents including the TCT issued to EPZA for they were excluded from the extrajudicial settlement of the estate. Said lot was among the object of an expropriation proceeding before the RTC. Jorgea Igot-Soro ño et al executed an Extra-judicial Partition claiming to be the only surviving heirs of the registered owners. FERNANDEZ FACTS: Lot 4673 was registered in the names of Florentina Rapaya.

interveners-appellees Facts That Ana Sarmiento resided. Since the property has already passed to the gov’t in an expropriation proceeding. 1917 15. she made another will making a part thereof the said codicil of November 23d." that the first chaplain of said capellania should be her nephew Pedro del Castillo. that on the 23d day of November. that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila has rightfully and legally succeeded in accordance with the terms and provisions of the will of Ana Sarmiento. and action for reconveyance based on an implied constructive trust has already prescribed as well the former having prescribed 4 years from the discovery and the latter prescribing 10 years from the alleged fraudulent registration. 1668. the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. 190 provides when property may be declared escheated. 2) NO.) THE CITY OF MANILA. she added a codicil to said will. EPZA is entitled to enjoy the security afforded innocent 3rd persons and their title to the property must be preserved. the gov’t through EPZA. However. 1668.R. the title has already passed to an innocent purchaser for value. In the case at bar. However. that said Ana Sarmiento died about the year 1672. 1669. in the city of Manila sometime prior to the 17th day of November.The only exception to this rule is when the title still remains in the hands of the heirs who have fraudulently caused the partition of the said property. the private respondents are not w/o remedy. . that for more than two hundred years the intervener. They can sue for damages their co-heirs. with her husband. petitioner-appellant. G. vs. through his various agencies. . "when a person dies intestate. that on the 19th day of May. Issue: May the property be escheated to the City of Manila Held: Section 750 of Act No. No. this cannot be availed once the property has passed to an innocent purchaser for value. that said will contained provisions for the establishment of a "Capellania de Misas. Reconveyance is a remedy for those whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name. Their remedies of action for reconveyance resulting from fraud. that on said date she made a will. has administered said property. It provides. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA and THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF MARIA CONCEPCION SARMIENTO. seized of real or personal property . L-10033 August 30. that said will contained a provision for the administration of said property in relation with the said "Capellania de Misas" succeeding administration should continue perpetually. 1668. leaving no heir or person .

actually resided in petitioner’s house as shown in the death certificate presented before the court. NO. He submitted documentary evidence showing that his deceased parents were residents of Angeles City. In view of the facts. Pampanga. it is still being administered in accordance with the terms of said will for the benefit of the real beneficiary as was intended by the original owner. the estate of an inhabitant of the Philippines shall be settled or letters of administration granted in the proper court located in the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death. She did not die without an heir nor without persons entitled to administer her estate. the property in question cannot be declared escheated as of the property of Ana Sarmiento. The will provides for the administration of said property by her nephew as well as for the subsequent administration of the same." that then and in that case such property under the procedure provided for by sections 751 and 752. Pampanga. The proof shows that Ana Sarmiento did not die intestate. Issue: Whether or not the settlement proceeding was properly laid in Quezon City.by law entitled to the same. Private respondent filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in the RTC of Quezon City over the estate of his parents. She left a will. 16. May 29.R. The settlement proceeding was properly laid in Quezon City. it must be based upon the fact that persons subsequent to Ana Sarmiento died intestate without leaving heir or person by law entitled to the same. this petition. may de declared escheated. Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of improper venue. Facts: Petitioner (Rodolfo Jao) and Private Respondent (Perico Jao) were the sons of the deceased Spouses Ignacio and Andrea Jao who died intestate in 1988 and 1989. therefore.) JAO VS COURT OF APPEALS G. Private respondent Perico countered that his parents resides in Quezon City and in fact. As provided for under the Rules of Court. alleging that petitioner Rodolfo was dissipating the assets of the estate. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondent Perico. It further shows that she did not die without leaving a person by law entitled to inherit her property. . Petitioner argued that his parents stay in Quezon City was merely transitory and that the death certificates could not be deemed conclusive evidence of the decedents’ residence. The CA affirmed in toto the trial court’s decision. Pending the appointment of a regular administrator. Hence. 128314. Held: Yes. The will clearly. The heir mentioned in said will evidently accepted its terms and permitted the property to be administered in accordance therewith. so far as the record shows. 2002. private respondent Perico moved that he be appointed as special administrator. definitely and unequivocally defines and designates what disposition shall be made of the property in question. He alleged that his parents did not reside in Quezon City during their lifetime but in Angeles City. And. The record fully and completely shows that the theory of the plaintiff is without foundation either in fact or in law. If by any chance the property may be declared escheated.

) Gaspay v. it was held that the term resides connotes ex vi termini “actual residence” as distinguished from legal residence or domicile. On 7/6/88 priv resp Guadalupe Gaspay Alfaro alleged @ TC (Trial Court) that she‗s Acknowledged (illegitimate child) IC of Flaviano with Claudia Pason. while domicile requires bodily presence and also an intention to make it one’s domicile.CA reversed TC on 9/30/91 saying that: Evid is ample to prove filiation as IC Evid is sufficient to show that Guad consented to the acknowledgement as IC Action can be instituted after the death of putative father. 17. the venue for the settlement of the decedents’ intestate was properly laid in the Quezon City. The Rules of Court refers to residence at the time of death. the term means merely residence. personal residence. meaning the personal. failed to show Guad consenting to theacknowledgement as IC and that such action should have been filed in the lifetimeof Flaviano. it was found that the decedents’ have been living in Quezon City at the time of their death and some time prior thereto. the residence must me more than temporary. Issue: WON Guadalupe is an IC Held: YES. In the case at bar. In the case of Garcia-Fule vs CA. not legal residence or domicile. In this popular sense. No particular length of time is required. CA 238 SCRA 163 Facts: Flaviano Gaspay died intestate on 10/14/83. then married to Agueda Denoso (childless). however. Thus. Petitioners are Jr. TC did not discount the testimony of Martin Garin (agent to loggingconcessionaire of Flaviano for 18 years) who verified handwriting and signature of Flaviano in a letter addressed to Lupe and Toming (Guad and his husband Bartolome Alfaro) regarding the . Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place. xxx resides should be viewed or understood in its popular sense.TC denied the MTD saying that such was based on indubitable grounds but TCnonetheless dismissed petition saying that testimonial and documentary evidencefailed to prove status of Guadalupe. and as was also shown in the death certificate presented by private respondent. actual or physical habitation of a person. (adopted son) and Eriberta (next of kin) who filed for an MTD(motion to dismiss) saying that Guadalupe is a stranger. actual residence or place of abode. not to the permanent residence or domicile. that is. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. prayed for issuance of letters of admin of Flaviano‗s estate.

She thereby proved entitlement to theadmin of estate. for this purpose. according to them. m. in the Project of Partition as approved by the trial court is the area of 83. 1973. thereby shouting to theworld her consent to the acknowledgment of an IC. 42643 since. clerical errors or mistakes or omission plainly due to inadvertence or negligence may be corrected or supplied even after the judgment has been entered.15 square meters.781 sq. Also when Guadalupe filed said action.781." On January 29. As to the action being instituted after death of putative father. CA said that TC must have assumed that Flaviano‗s handwriting must have metamorphosed during the years but it could be possible that handwriting of Flaviano never changed at all. Sr. she still usedGaspay affixed to her legal surname as married to Alfaro. the correct land area is 803. the petitioner insists that "the area intended by the heirs of Don Antonio de Zuzuarregui. and not 803. Rizal. the court's findings of facts and its conclusions of law as expressed in the body of the decision. Q-325 for the purpose of correcting an alleged typographical error in the description of the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14 She further contends that the fact that the description of the area as 83.781 square meters was repeated several times is sufficient evidence to show that such was the area intended in the project of partition. the respondent administratrix and the other three distributees filed a motion to reopen Special Proceedings No. real estate property.51 sq. there was no such clerical error. De Reyes vs. 8 The heirs of Beatriz de Zuzuarregui Vda.781. m. 13 She claims that she would not have relinquished her share in said parcel of land if the true area was not fraudulently concealed from her at the time the project of partition was executed. their mother being Pacita Javier who was the niece of the herein respondent administratrix. de Reyes filed their opposition to said motion. While it is not disputed that the area covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. The petitioner did not have a share in the aforesaid parcel of land because she relinquished her right thereto "in lieu of her bigger share in Antipolo.hospitalization expenses of Guad‗s daughter.) Vda.781 square meters.781. 12 However. 15 . the petitioners neglected to apply for a letter admin 30days after the death of Flaviano Gaspay 18. CA Facts Petitioner was the daughter of the deceased by a mother different from that of his aforesaid three (3) sons. It is well settled that even if a decision has become final. according to the petitioner. The correction of a clerical error is an exception to the general rule that no amendment or correction may be made by the court in its judgment once the latter had become final.. Moreover. 11 The court may make this amendment ex parte and.51 square meters and not 83. CA said action based on acknoweldgement may bebrought even after death of putative fatherǁ. 42643 is 803. Held recourse. it may resort to the pleadings filed by the parties.

necessarily including the entire area of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.42336% of the total land area covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18 while the motion to re-open the proceedings was filed only on January 29. If We were to indulge petitioner in her stand that the area of 803. therefore.000 square meters? 16 Besides.) Metropolitan Bank vs.781 square meters was typewritten in the document as 83. 17 If so. petitioner suggests that she and the male heirs could not see eye to eye because they did not have a common mother.781 square meters has still to be divided into fifteen (15) parts to arrive at the aliquot portions of 12/15 and 1/15 of the other heirs in this particular property.000 square meters? What sound reason would the heirs have in holding in suspense the distribution of the difference of 720. Petitioner has not offered any plausible contrary explanation. she had the assistance of legal counsel in the intestate proceedings and in the preparation of the project of partition. 1958.781 square meters was the one intended for distribution. rather than for them to remain as co-owners for a long time. That a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate is filed and intended to settle the entire estate of the deceased is obvious and elementary. 19. as in fact it is. the assumed area of 83.781 square meters. 1973. much less to reverse. Parenthetically. a logical and credible explanation that the omission of the zero between the figures "8" and "3" converted "803. 42643. No. the factual finding of the lower court that a typographical or clerical error was clearly committed by inadvertence in the project of partition. It is readily apparent from the project of partition that it was meant to be. because of Chua’s control over AMC’s operations. There is. It would be absurd for the heirs to intentionally excluded or leave a parcel of land or a portion thereof undistributed or undivided because the proceeding is precisely designed to end the community of interests in properties held by co-partners pro indiviso without designation or segregation of shares. It will be observed that such a portion would constitute only 10. 2013 Facts: Metrobank deposited the AMC checks to Ayala Lumber and Hardware’s account. a full and complete adjudication and partition of all properties of the estate. Why would the parties deliberately create such an unlikely mathematical situation which would complicate the actual physical segregation of the area supposed to be distributed? It is. Metrobank assumed that the checks payable to AMC could be deposited to Ayala Lumber and Hardware’s account. 42643.781" to "83. no reason to disturb. Absolute Management Corp. 170498 | January 9. why is it that they did not make any further disposition of the remaining balance of 720. then the irresistible question would be how and why the parties arrived at that particular latter figure. therefore. .R. a product purely of clerical oversight. if the intention of the heirs was to make only a partial adjudication and distribution of the subject parcel of land.781". this supposed antagonism would even be a compelling reason for the parties to insist on the total partition of all the properties in the first instance. not because of the typist's error in omitting the number "0" between the numbers "8" and "3" in the first three digits but because the latter area of only 83. the project of partition is dated June 17.Such contentions are without merit. As hereinbefore indicated. | G. Thus as perceptively posed by the queries of the respondents. On top of this.

Metrobank’s fourth-party complaint falls under the quasi-contracts enunciated in Article 2154 of the Civil Code. and checks exclusively and expressly payable to one cannot be deposited in the account of the other. said petition was opposed by the nephews of Juan stating that there is a valid will left by the deceased in Spain. a copy of which is being requested. Ruling of the Case: . 20. has two indispensable requisites: first. filed a petition for the intestate settlement of the estate of the deceased in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.) Uriarte vs. Article 2154 embodies the concept "solutio indebiti" which arises when something is delivered through mistake to a person who has no right to demand it. the nephews filed a settlement of the estate in the court of Manila. Chua. In its fourth-party complaint. 1970 Facts of the Case: Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain and he left reasonable properties in the Philippines. Vicente filed a petition for certiorari questioning the dismissal of the intestate settlement in the CFI of Negros. and second. Issue: Whether or not Ayala Lumber must return the amount of said checks to Metrobank. despite Chua’s control over AMC and Ayala Lumber and Hardware. Vicente Uriarte. Metrobank claims that Chua’s estate should reimburse it if it becomes liable on the checks that it deposited to Ayala Lumber and Hardware’s account. Hence. that something has been unduly delivered through mistake. who is claiming to be the son and sole heir of the deceased. Then. through its sole proprietor. Court of First Instance 33 SCRA 252 May 29. to return the amount of these checks to Metrobank. It obligates the latter to return what has been received through mistake. However. on the basis of the alleged will of the deceased. Vicente filed an opposition to the settlement of estate in the court of Manila stating that the court of Negros Occidental has already acquired original jurisdiction over the case. Issue: Whether or not the intestate settlement should be dismissed. This fulfills the requisites of solutio indebiti. i Held: Metrobank acted in a manner akin to a mistake when it deposited the AMC checks to Ayala Lumber and Hardware’s account because it assumed that the checks payable to AMC could be deposited to Ayala Lumber and Hardware’s account. that something was received when there was no right to demand it.Ayala Lumber and Hardware had no right to demand and receive the checks that were deposited to its account. as defined in Article 2154 of the Civil Code. This disjunct created an obligation on the part of Ayala Lumber and Hardware. Solutio indebiti. The opposition of Vicente was dismissed together with the intestate settlement In the CFI of Negros. the two entities are distinct.

Adelaida Ramos borrowed from her brother. The money was used to finance the trip to Hawaii of Ramiro. Adelaida filed a civil case with the CFI for the declaration of nullity of orders. of her rights. fraud and undue influence and that the orders dated January 22. 1960. Tarlac When Aidelaida Ramos. 1959 and August 30. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the intestate proceeding is proper. that the action as long prescribed. 10788 registered in the names of Socorro Ramos. 4221 covered by a Certificate of Title No. As defense. CFI conveyed the deed of the conditional sale to spouses Oscar and Luz by way of pacto de retro sale whatever right and interests Adelaida may have in lot no. The court also ordered the consolidation of ownership and dominion to spouses Oscar and Luz over the rights. Fred Nabba and Atty. 5125 registered in the name of their deceased parents and lot no. ADELAIDA RAMOS and LAZARO E.000 in connection with her business transaction with Flor Ramiro. approving the Notarial Registry of Notary Public Jose P. 1968.) OSCAR D. Ruperto Sarandi involving the recovery of parcel of land. as vendor a retro failed to exercise her right of repurchase within the redemption period. MENESES Facts : In January 1959. COURT OF APPEALS. Adelaida alleged in her complaint that the deeds of conditional sale are mere mortgages and were vitiated by misrepresentation. . issued by the cadastral court were null and void for lack of jurisdiction. said properties being of the cadastral survey of Paniqui. specifically denied the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation and interposed. testate proceedings enjoy priority over intestate proceedings.Josefina Ramos and Adelaida Ramos. the orders questioned approving the consolidation of ownership of the lands where within the jurisdiction of the lower court in its capacity as a probate court and as a cadastral court. Oscar Ramos. 4221 in the Court of First Instance as a cadastral court. in case intestate settlement was filed prior to the finding of the will of the deceased. then the intestate proceedings shall be dismissed to give priority to the testate proceeding. the fact that the conditional sales were voluntarily executed by Adelaida and truly expressed the intention of the parties. RAMOS and LUZ AGUDO. 1960 and April 18. 21. Sibal. shares and interests of Adelaida in lot no. shares and interests and participation respectively over lot no. Nabba and Sarandi. that the land subject of the conditional sales were in custodia legis in connection with the settlement of the properties of the late Margarita Denoga. 4033 covered by Original Certificate of Title No. Adelaida Ramos (private respondent) execuded in favor of Oscar and Luz two deeds of conditional sale dated May 27. 4221 which she sold to the spouses under a pacto de retro sale executed in a public instrument but which she failed to repurchase within the period specified in said Document. On February 28. Under the Rules on the settlement of estate of the deceased person. the predecessor in interest of both petitioners and the private respondent. the petitioners filed a petition for consolidation and approval of the conditional sale of Lot No. recovery of possession with preliminary injunction and damages. in their answer. As security of the loan. Therefore. the amounts P5. 1959. reformation of instrument. 4033. 1960. HON. 4033 and petition for approval of the pacto de retro sale of lot no. vs. Petitioners. On January 22.000 and 9. Private respondents had been and remained in possession of these properties until sometime in 1964 when petitioner took possession thereof.

as expressly admitted by the parties at the hearing of February 17. (2) the sums representing the alleged purchase price were actually advanced to plaintiff by way of loans. Issue : WON the transaction was deemed to be an equitable mortgage. to wit: Several undisputed circumstances persuade this Court (that) the questioned deeds should be construed as equitable mortgages as contemplated in Article 1602 of the Civil Code. fruits or other benefit to be received by the vendee as rent or otherwise shall be considered as interest which shall be subject to the usury laws. The court ruled that in practically all of the so called contracts of sale with right of repurchase. the CA affirmed in all respects the ruling of the CFI. The provisions contained in articles 1859 and 1858 of the civil code which respectively prohibit the creditor from appropriating the things given in pledge or mortgage and ordering that said things be sold or alienated when the principal obligation becomes due. In any of the foregoing cases. On May 17. in holding that the two (2) deeds purporting to be pacto de retro sale contracts are equitable mortgages. (2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise. (5) When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold. in any of the following cases: (1) When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is unusually inadequate. The SC denied the petition and affirmed the CA ruling. 1975. Ruling: Yes. 1971. the CFI declared the loan transaction secured by the Real Estate Mortgage as equitable mortages. (4) When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price. namely: (1) plaintiff vendor remained in possession until 1964 of the properties she allegedly sold in 1959 to defendants. relied on the following factual findings of the trial court. and in order to secure the payment of the loan. On October 7. 1971. any money. (3) When upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase another instrument extending the period of redemption or granting a new period is executed. Article 1602 of the Civil Code provides: The contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage. reflected in an Order of the same date: and (3) the properties allegedly purchased by defendant Oscar Ramos and his wife have never been declared for taxation purposes in their names. The Court of Appeals. the real intention of the parties is that the pretended purchase price is money loaned. (6) In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation. . a contract purporting to be sale with pacto de retro is drawn up. are circumvented.

The RTC dismissed the complaint. Ruling : NO. Section 3.) Romero vs. when Judge Romero died his wife. 2013 . Nullification of Title. Romero alleging that their brother Vittorio – through fraud. misrepresentation and duress – succeeded in registering the several properties in his name through of Deeds of Sale executed by their mother. The said provision states that: “Sec. Hence this appeal. who pays in the money. but with adequate safeguards and restrictions. and in fact rent is the interest on the money loaned The interest is usurious. Leo and David Romero filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale. Rule 87 bars petitioners from filing the present action. July 8. no action to recover the title or possession of lands or for damages done to such lands shall be maintained against him by an heir or devisee until there is an order of the court assigning such lands to such heir or devisee or until the time allowed for paying debts has expired. Likewise. but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. Petitioners assert that the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a probate or intestate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate of deceased persons or the appointment of executors. Issue: Whether or not a separate civil action for annulment of sale and reconveyance of title. 22. Romero may prosper. The CA dismissed the petition. Furthermore. Heir may not sue until share assigned. Romero and brother Vittorio C. Rule 87 of the Rules of Court which bars an heir or a devisee from maintaining an action to recover the title or possession of lands until such lands have actually been assigned. the RTC denied their MR. it is well known that the practice in these contracts of sale with pacto de retro is to draw up another contract purporting to be a lease of the property to the supposed vendor. Leo and David filed Petition for Certiorari before the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion in the Resolutions issued by the RTC of Lingayen. Pangasinan. 3. or in rent. During the pendency of Settlement Proceedings of the estate of their deceased father. – When an executor or administrator is appointed and assumes the trust. thus the usury law is circumvented. 188921. 2012 Facts: On 1974. April 18. The contract under consideration is preserved in the civil code. citing Section 3. and Conveyance of Title against their mother Aurora C.” GR No. CA GR. No. 198680. Aurora. despite the pendency of the settlement proceedings for the estate of the late Judge Dante Y. The court ruled that “plaintiffs must first cause the termination of settlement proceedings to its logical conclusion before their case could be entertained by the Court. Aurora was appointed as legal guardian.

vs. WILSON YPON. and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and/or possession. citing several other precedents. as there is no showing that the petitioners have been judicially declared as Magdaleno’s lawful heirs. and . (b) the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Exception By way of exception.K. the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality. Gaudioso executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and caused the cancellation of the aforementioned certificates of title. as when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship. GAUDIOSO PONTERAS RICAFORTE A. the Ypons filed a complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance with Damages (subject complaint) against respondent Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte. ALVARO YPON. by way of affirmative defense. and (c) a certified true copy of his passport. the Court. In their complaint.A. PEÑALOSA. he claimed that: (a) petitioners have no cause of action against him. or when a special proceeding had been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated." AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TOLEDO CITY. 2010. Direct to the Supreme Court (pure questions of law) ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC’s dismissal of the case on the ground that the subject complaint failed to state a cause of action was proper RULING: Yes.) HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON. 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. DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: (1) RTC-Toledo: dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. as in this case. BARON. held that the determination of who are the decedent’s lawful heirs must be made in the proper special proceeding for such purpose. Gaudioso alleged that he is the lawful son of Magdaleno as evidenced by: (a) his certificate of Live Birth. it was proper. Further. CICERO YPON. FACTS: On July 29. from granting the same. NAMELY. YPON. AND HINIDINO Y. they alleged that Magdaleno Ypon (Magdaleno) died intestate and childless on June 28. RESPONDENTS. General Rule The rule is that the determination of a decedent’s lawful heirs should be made in the corresponding special proceeding precludes the RTC. ERUDITA Y. In the case of Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. 1968 Claiming to be the sole heir of Magdaleno. and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment thereon. The Court also denied their motion for reconsideration due to the counsel’s failure to state the date on which his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Certificate of Compliance was issued. leading to their subsequent transfer in his name In his Answer. and (c) the case is not prosecuted by the real parties-in-interest. (b) two (2) letters from Polytechnic School. PETITIONERS. CA. VICTOR YPON. in an ordinary action for cancellation of title and reconveyance. "GAUDIOSO E.23.

appear to exist. cannot be re-opened. none of the foregoing exceptions. In this case.hence. . or those of similar nature.