ESCHEAT

Rule 91

Definition:

• It is a proceeding whereby the real and personal property of a deceased person

become the property of the State upon his death without leaving a will or legal heirs.

Section 1. When and by whom petition is filed.

• When a person dies intestate, seized of real or personal property in the Philippines,
leaving no heir or person by law entitled to the same, the Solicitor General or his
representative in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, may file a petition in the
Court of First Instance of the province where the deceased last resided or in which he
had estate, if he resided out of the Philippines, setting forth the facts, and praying that
the estate of the deceased be declared escheated.

Who is the real party-in-interest in all actions for the reversion to the government of lands of
the public domain?

• In all actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or
improvements thereon, the Republic of the Philippines is the real party-in-interest. The
action shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. (Luis B. Manese, et al. v. Spouses Velasco, et
al., G.R. No 164024, January 29, 2009)

Legal Basis:

Regalian Doctrine

• In all actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or
improvements thereon, the Republic of the Philippines is the real party-in-interest. The
action shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. (Luis B. Manese, et al. v. Spouses Velasco, et
al., G.R. No 164024, January 29, 2009)

Historical Background

• In all actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or
improvements thereon, the Republic of the Philippines is the real party-in-interest. The
action shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in
 behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. (Luis B. Manese, et al. v. Spouses Velasco, et
al., G.R. No 164024, January 29, 2009)

Under the Maura Law, lands would revert to the state as part of the public domain if
possessory information proceeding is not instituted within one year from April 17, 1894.

The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions adopted the Regalian doctrine substituting,
however, the State, in lieu of the King, as the owner of all lands and waters of the public
domain. The Regalian doctrine is the foundation of the time-honored principle of land
ownership that “all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by
purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain.” Article 339 of the Civil Code of
1889, which is now Article 420 of the Civil Code of 1950, incorporated the Regalian
doctrine.

• Sec 2., Article XII, 1987 Constitution

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.

Section 2. Order for hearing.

If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order reciting the
purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof, which date shall be
not more than six (6) months after the entry of the order, and shall direct that a copy of the
order be published before the hearing at least once a week for six (6) successive weeks in
some newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as the court shall deem best.

Can the trial court convert an escheat proceeding into an ordinary special proceeding?

No, this is not allowed by the rules. The two actions are entirely different from each
other and the requirements in vesting jurisdiction are likewise different. In special proceedings,
publication is once a week for three consecutive weeks while in escheat, once a week for six
consecutive weeks.
Section 3. Hearing and judgment.

• Upon the satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order that such order
has been published as directed and that the person died intestate, seized of real or
personal property in the Philippines, leaving no heir or person entitled to the same, and
no sufficient cause being shown to the contrary, the court shall adjudge that estate of
the deceased in the Philippines, after the payment of just debts and charges, shall
escheat; and shall, pursuant to law, assign the personal estate to the municipality or
city where he last resided in the Philippines, and the real estate of the municipalities
or cities, respectively, in which the same is situated. If the deceased never resided in
the Philippines, the whole estate may be assigned to the respective municipalities or
cities where same is located. Such estate shall be for the benefit of public schools, and
public charitable institutions and centers in said municipalities or cities.
• The court, at the instance of an interested party, or on its own motion, may order the
establishment of a permanent trust, so that only the income from the property shall be
used.

BAR Q., 2018. If there are no qualified heirs, can the government initiate escheat proceedings
over the assets of the deceased? To whom, in particular, shall the estate of the deceased go
and for whose benefit?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

YES, if there are no qualified heirs, the government can initiate escheat proceedings over the
assets of the deceased pursuant to Section 1, Rule 91 of the Rules of Court.

Under Section 3, Rule 91 of the Rules of Court, the personal estate of the deceased shall be
assigned to the municipality or city where he last resided in the Philippines, and the real estate
to the municipalities or cities, respectively, in which the same is situated. If the deceased never
resided in the Philippines, the whole estate may be assigned to the respective municipalities or
cities where the same is located. Such estate shall be for the benefit of public schools, and
public charitable institutions and centers in said municipalities or cities.
Section 4. When and whom claim to estate filed.

If a devisee, legatee, heir, widow, widower or other person entitled to such estate
appears and files a claim thereto with the court within five (5) years from the date of such
judgment, such person shall have possession of and title to the same, or if sold, the
municipality or city shall be accountable to him for the proceeds, after deducting reasonable
charges for the care of the estate; but a claim not made within said time shall be forever
barred.

Section 5. Other actions for escheat.

Until otherwise provided by law, actions for reversion or escheat of properties

alienated in violation of the Constitution or of any statute shall be governed by this rule,
except that the action shall be instituted in the province where the land lies in whole or in part.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

Republic vs. CA & Solano

G.R. No. 143483
31 January 2002

FACTS:

Private respondent Amada Solano served as the all-around personal domestic helper of the late
Elizabeth Hankins, a widow and a French national, for more than three decades. During Ms.
Hankins’ lifetime and most especially during the waning years of her life, respondent Solano
was her constant companion since no close relative was available to tend to her needs. In
recognition of Solano’s faithful and dedicated service, Ms. Hankins executed in her favor two
Deeds of Donation involving two parcels of land. Private respondent alleged that she misplaced
the Deeds of Donation and were nowhere to be found

While the Deeds of Donation were missing, the Republic filed a petition for the escheat of the
estate of Elizabeth Hankins before the RTC of Pasay City. Since it was established that there
were no known heirs and persons entitled to the properties of decedent Hankins, the lower
court escheated the estate of the decedent in favor of petitioner Republic of the Philippines.
Petitioner also insists that notwithstanding the Deeds of Donation in favor of private
respondent, the five-year statute of limitations within which to file claims before the court a
quo as set forth in Rule 91 of the Revised Rules of Court has set in.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondent can claim the properties that are subjects of donations.

HELD:

NO. Escheat is a proceeding, unlike that of succession or assignment, whereby the State, by
virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claims the real or personal property of a person who dies
intestate leaving no heir.

A claimant to an escheated property must file his claim “within five years from the date of such
judgment, such person shall have possession of and title to the same, or if sold, the municipality
or city shall be accountable to him for the proceeds, after deducting the estate; but a claim not
made shall be barred forever.

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

Any person alleging to have a direct right or interest in the property sought to be escheated is
likewise an interested party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat. However,
private respondent’s belated assertion of her right over the escheated properties militates
against recovery.

Alvarico vs. Sola

G.R. No. 138953
06 June 2002

FACTS

Fermina was an awardee and a winning bidder of a land auctioned by the Bureau of Lands. In
1983, she executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication and Transfer of rights over said land in favor of
the Respondent who agreed to assume all the obligations, duties and conditions regarding the
patent application thereon. Said document of transfer was duly filed with the Bureau of Lands
and the latter approved such transfer of rights granting the amendment of application from
Fermina to Respondent. Consequently, an OCT was issued to Respondent in 1984.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed an action for reconveyance against Respondent before the RTC
claiming that Fermina donated the subject land to him in 1984 and thereafter, he took
possession of the same in 1985. As such, it has the effect of withdrawing the earlier transfer to
Respondent.

Respondent countered that the donation to the Petitioner was void because Fermina was no
longer the owner of the subject land when she allegedly donated it to the Petitioner in 1984.
Besides, such alleged donation lacks the approval of the Bureau of Lands.

RTC ruled in favor of petitioner. CA reversed.

ISSUE:

Whether a private individual like petitioner could bring an action for reversion.

HELD:
NO. Only the State can institute reversion proceedings under Sec. 101 of Public Land Act. Thus:

Sec. 101. All actions for reversion to the Government of lands of public domain or
improvements thereon, shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or officer acting on his
stead in the proper court in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.

In other words, a private individual like the Petitioner may not bring an action for reversion or
any action which would have the effect of cancelling Respondent’s free patent and the
certificate of title issued on the basis thereof, such that the land covered thereby will again
form part of the public domain. Only the SOLGEN or officer acting on his stead may do so since,
Respondent’s title originated from a grant by the government. Its cancellation therefore is a
matter between the grantor (state) and the grantee (Respondent). Clearly then, Petitioner has
no standing at all to question the validity of Respondent’s title. It follows that he cannot recover
the property because, to begin with, he has not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof

Reporters:
JOHN ERIC B. BAROMA
JONNA MAY B. BAYABAN