I.

JURISDICTION, DEFINITION, NATURE (k) Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural
children;
A. Definition and Nature of Special Proceedings and Rules (l) Constitution of family home;
Applicable (m) Declaration of absence and death;
a. Rule 1, sec. 3(c) viz Rule 72, sec. 1; Rule 2, secs. 1-2 (n) Cancellation of correction of entries in the civil registry.

RULE 1

Section 3. Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern the

procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special
proceedings.

(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to

establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.

RULE 2

Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. — Every ordinary civil

action must be based on a cause of action. (n)

Section 2. Cause of action, defined. — A cause of action is the act

or omission by which a party violates a right of another.

RULE 72

Section 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. — Rules of special

proceedings are provided for in the following cases:

(a) Settlement of estate of deceased persons;

(b) Escheat;
(c) Guardianship and custody of children;
(d) Trustees;
(e) Adoption;
(f) Rescission and revocation of adoption;
(g) Hospitalization of insane persons;
(h) Habeas corpus;
(i) Change of name;
(j) Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
Meaning and Scope of Special Proceedings; Distinction from Civil
Actions
BROADWELL HAGANS v. WISLIZENUS (Judge of CFI Cebu)
September 13, 1920| Johnson, J. | Distinction from Civil Actions
SUMMARY: The issue in this case is whether a CFI judge has authority
granted by law to appoint assessors to fix the amount due to an
administrator or executor. The SC ruled that while there are laws providing
for such authority, such laws do not apply to special proceedings.
DOCTRINE: There is a marked difference between “special proceedings”
and “actions”. Section 1 of Act 190 provides that an "action" means an
ordinary suit in a court of justice, while "every other remedy furnished by
law is a 'special proceeding."
An action is a formal demand of one's legal rights in a court of justice in the
manner prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying
legal remedies according to definite established rules. The term "special
proceeding" may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish the
status or right of a party, or a particular fact.
FACTS:
 This is an original petition for writ of certiorari. The facts alleged in the
petition are admitted by a demurrer.
 The only question presented is, whether or not a judge of the Court of
First Instance, in "special proceedings," is authorized under the law to
appoint assessors for the purpose of fixing the amount due to an
administrator or executor for his services and expenses in the care,
management, and settlement of the estate of a deceased person.
 The respondent judge, in support of his demurrer, argues that the
provision of Act No. 190 permit him to appoint assessors in "special
proceedings," The petitioner contends that no authority in law exists for
the appointment of assessors in such proceedings.
RULING: Demurrer Overruled, Petition Granted. Order appointing
assessors annulled
Whether a judge of the Court of First Instance, in "special
proceedings," is authorized under the law to appoint assessors for the
purpose of fixing the amount due an administrator/executor – NO
 The only provisions of law which authorize the appointment of
assessors are the following;
(a) Section 57-62 of Act No. 190; [SC: appointment of assessors in
the court of justice of the peace]
(b) sections 153-161 of Act No. 190;
(c) section 44 (a) of Act No. 267; [SC: applies to the City of Manila
only]
(d) section 2477 of Act No. 2711; and [SC: applies to the City of
Manila only]
(e) section 2 of Act No. 2369. [SC: appointment of assessors in
criminal cases only]
 Therefore, the only provisions of law which could, by any possibility,
permit the appointment of assessors in "special proceedings" are
sections 153-161 of Act No. 190.
o Section 154: "either party to an action may apply in writing to
the judge for assessors to sit in the trial. Upon the filing of such
application, the judge shall direct that assessors be provided, . . . ."
 Is a "special proceeding," like the present, an "action"? If it is, then, the
court is expressly authorized by said section 154 to appoint assessors.
But we find, upon an examination of section 1 of Act No. 190, which
gives us an interpretation of the words used in said Act, that a
distinction is made between an "action" and a "special
proceeding." Said section 1 provides that an "action" means an
ordinary suit in a court of justice, while "every other remedy
furnished by law is a 'special proceeding."
 In view of the interpretation given to the words "action" and "special
proceeding" by the Legislature itself, the conclusion is that there is a
distinction between an "action" and a "special proceeding," and that
when the Legislature used the word "action" it did not mean "special
proceeding."
 People v. County Judge: An action is a formal demand of one's legal
rights in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by
the law. It is the method of applying legal remedies according to
definite established rules.
 Porter v. Purdy; Chapin v. Thompson: The term "special proceeding"
may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status or
right of a party, or a particular fact.
 Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are required,
unless the statute expressly so provides. The remedy in special
proceedings is generally granted upon an application or motion.
Illustrations of special proceedings, in contradistinction to actions, may
be given: Proceedings for the appointment of an administrator,
guardians, tutors; contest of wills; to perpetuate testimony; to change
the name of persons; application for admission to the bar, etc., etc.
(Bliss on Code Pleading, 3d ed., sec. 1.
Natcher v. CA and the Heirs of Graciano Del Rosario o The Deed of Sale cannot be considered a valid donation
GR No. 133000; 2 October 2001; Buena, J. as it is equally prohibited by law (Art. 133, NCC)
o The Deed of Sale may however be regarded as an
FACTS extension of advance inheritance of NATCHER being
 Spouses GRACIANO Del Rosario and GRACIANA Esguerra a compulsory heir of GRACIANO. 
were registered owners of a parcel of land with an area of 9,322 sqm. 
 Upon the death of GRACIANA, GRACIANO and his six children  CA: reversed the RTC
entered into an extrajudicial settlement of GRACIANA’s estate. Under  It is the probate court that has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just
the agreement, GRACIANO received 8/14 share while his six children and legal distribution of the estate. The RTC, trying an ordinary
got 1/14 share each. action for Reconveyance/annulment of title, went beyond its
 GRACIANO and his children forged an “Agreement of jurisdiction when it performed acts proper only in a special
Consolidation-Subdivision of Real Property with Waiver of Rights” proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person. 
where they subdivided the lots they inherited. GRACIANO donated to  The RTC should have ruled on the validity of the sale and left the
his children a portion of the lot leaving only 447.6 sqm under his issue on advancement to be resolved in a separate proceeding
name.    instituted for that purpose. 
 The 447.6 sqm lot was further subdivided into two lots: 80.9 sqm
and 396.7 sqm. The 80.9 sqm lot was sold to by GRACIANO to a third  NATCHER filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
person. The 396.7 sqm lot was sold to his second wife, herein
petitioner, Patricia NATCHER.  ISSUE
 GRACIANO died leaving NATCHER and his children by his first May a Regional Trial Court, acting as a court of general jurisdiction in
marriage.    an action for Reconveyance and annulment of title with damages,
 The respondent-heirs filed a Complaint alleging that upon adjudicate matters relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased
GRACIANO’s death, NATCHER through fraud, misrepresentation and person particularly on questions as to advancement of property made
forgery made it appear that GRACIANO executed a Deed of Sale. They by the decedent to any of the heirs?  - No
also allege that as a consequence of such fraudulent sale, their legitimes
have been impaired.     HELD: CA Decision affirmed. Instant petition dismissed. 
 In NATCHER’s Answer, she alleged that she was legally married
to GRACIANO and thus, under the law she was likewise considered a  Sec. 1, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines civil
compulsory heir.  She also alleged that GRACIANO already distributed action and special proceeding.  
in advance properties to his children, hence, the respondent-heirs may  CIVIL ACTION is one by which a party sues another for the
not anymore claim against GRACIANO’s estate or against her enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of
(NATCHER) property.   a wrong. It may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by
 RTC of Manila Branch 55:  the rules of ordinary civil actions, subject to specific rules
o The Deed of Sale executed by GRACIANO in favor of prescribed for special civil action.      
NATCHER is prohibited by law there being no evidence  SPECIAL PROCEEDING is a remedy by which a party seeks to
that a separation of property was agreed upon in the establish a status, a right or a particular fact. 
marriage settlements or that there has been decreed a
judicial separation of property between them.  
  An ACTION is a formal demand of one’s right in a court of justice  There has been no waiver on the part of respondent-heirs inasmuch
in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law. It is a method of as the six children of the decedent even assailed the authority of the
applying legal remedies according to definite established rules.   trail court, acting in its general jurisdiction, to rule on this specific issue
of advancement made by the decedent to petitioner.
 SPECIAL PROCEEDING is an application or proceeding to
establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact. Usually, in  In a train of decisions, the Court has consistently enunciated the
special proceedings, no formal pleadings are required unless the long standing principle that although generally, a probate court may
statute expressly so provides. In special proceedings the remedy is not decide a question of title or ownership, yet if the interested
granted generally upon an application or motion. It is in the nature parties are all heirs, or the question is one of collation or
of a distinct and independent proceeding for particular relief, such as advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of
may be instituted independently of a pending action, by petition or jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are
motion upon notice.  not impaired, then the probate court is competent to decide the
question of ownership.
In this case

 An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is

a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a
deceased person such as advancement of property made by the
decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding, which
concomitantly requires the application of specific rules as provided for
in the ROC.
 Matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of
the decedent fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate
court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.  
 
 The RTC was not properly constituted as a probate court so as to
validly pass upon the question of advancement made by GRACIANO
to his wife, NATCHER. 

No waiver on the part of respondent-heirs

 In resolving the case at bench, this Court is not unaware of our

pronouncement in Coca v. Borromeo and Mendoza v. Teh that whether
a particular matter should be resolved by the RTC (then CFI) in the
exercise of its general jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction is
not a jurisdictional issue but a mere question of procedure. In essence,
it is procedural question involving a mode of practice "which may be
waived".
Vda de Manalo v CA
G.R. No. 129242; 16 January 2001; De Leon, Jr., J.
 
FACTS
 Troadio Manalo died intestate and was survived by his wife, Pilar,
and his 11 children. At the time of his death on Feb. 14, 1992,
heleft several real properties located in Manila and in Tarlac.
 On Nov 26, 1992, herein respondents (8 of the surviving children)
filed a petition with the RTC of Manila for the judicial settlement
of the estate of their late father and for the appointment of their
brother Romeo Manalo as administrator thereof.
 On February 11, 1993, the date set for hearing of the petition, the
trial court issued an order “declaring the whole world in default,
except the government”
 However this order of general default was set aside by the TC upon
motion of the petitioners (wife and 3 children of Troadio Manalo)
who were granted 10 days within which to file their opposition to
the petition.
 Oppositions were filed by herein petitioners but the TC resolved in
favor of the respondents.
 Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA.
CA dismissed the petition for certiorari in its Resolution and the
motion for reconssideration of the said Resolution was likewise
dismissed.
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONERS:  settlement of the estate of their deceased father
 The petition filed by the respondents (8 surviving children) is
actually an ordinary civil action involving members of the same
family. The petitioners point out that it contains certain averments
which, according to them, are indicative of its adversarial nature.  after all the properties have been inventoried and
 Consequently, the petition should be dismissed under Rule 16, Sec
1 (j) of the ROC which provides that a motion to dismiss a
complaint may be filed on the ground that a condition precedent
for filing the claim has not been complied with, that is, the
petitioners therein failed to aver in the petition that earnest efforts
have been made involving members of the same family prior to the
filing of the petition pursuant to Article 222 of the NCC
ISSUE:
WON the Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and
Distribution of Estate is an ordinary civil action, thus Rule 16, Sec 1(j)
Rules of Court vis-a-vis Article 222 of the Civil Code apply as a ground for
the dismissal of the petition – NO 
HELD:
WHEREFORE the petition is DENIED for lack of merit
RATIO:
 It is a fundamental rule that, the jurisdiction of a court, as well
as the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the
averments and the relief sought in the complaint or petition,
and not by the defenses contained in the answer.
 A careful scrutiny of the Petition for Issuance of Letters of
Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate belies herein
petitioners’ claim that the same is in the nature of an ordinary civil
action. It contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a
petition for the settlement of estate of a deceased person such as:
o The fact of the death of the late Troadio Manalo
o Residence at the time of his death
o Enumeration of the names of his legal heirs
o Tentative list of the properties left w/c are sought to be
settled in the probate proceedings
 In addition, the reliefs prayed for leave no room for doubt as regard
the intention of the respondents (8 children) to seek judicial
o Letters of administration be issued to their brother Romeo
Manalo
o Settlement and distribution of properties of the deceased
expenses and just debts, if any, have been paid and legal
heirs determined
 The SC said that the petition filed by respondents herein to settle
the estate of their father contains certain averments which may be
typical of an ordinary civil action. 
 The petitioners herein took advantage of said defect in the petition
and filed their so-called Opposition thereto which, as observed by
the TC, is actually an Answer containing admissions and denials,
special and affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaims for
 actual, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees and
costs in an apparent effort to make out a case of an ordinary civil
action and ultimately seek its dismisal under Rule 16, Sec 1 (j) of
the ROC vis-a-vis Article 222 of the NCC B. Subject Matters of Special Proceedings, Rule 72, sec. 1

Art. 222.  No suit shall be filed or maintained between RULE 72

members of the same family unless it should appear that
earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, Section 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. — Rules of special
but that the same have failed, subject to the limitations proceedings are provided for in the following cases:
in Article 2035.
(a) Settlement of estate of deceased persons;
 Article 222 of the NCC is applicable only to ordinary civil actions.
(b) Escheat;
This is clear from the term “suit” that it refers to an action by one
(c) Guardianship and custody of children;
person or persons against another or others in a court of justice in
(d) Trustees;
which the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords him
(e) Adoption;
for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right, whether
(f) Rescission and revocation of adoption;
at law or in equity.
(g) Hospitalization of insane persons;
 A civil action is thus an action filed in a court of justice,
(h) Habeas corpus;
whereby a party sues another for the enforcement of a right, or
(i) Change of name;
the prevention or redress of a wrong. Besides, an excerpt from
(j) Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
the Report of the Code Commission unmistakably reveals the
(k) Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural
intention of the Code Commission to make that legal provision
children;
applicable only to civil actions which are essentially adversarial
(l) Constitution of family home;
and involve members of the same family.
(m) Declaration of absence and death;
 It must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein petitioners) are (n) Cancellation of correction of entries in the civil registry.
not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 for any cause of action
as in fact no defendant was impleaded therein.  The Petition for
Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and
Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 is a special Cases:
proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy whereby the petitioners
therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
 The respondents herein merely seek to establish the fact 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.
 HERNAEZ, JR. v. IAC and HERNAEZ, SR.
May 7, 1992 | Nocon, J. | In General – Subject Matter
Digester: Bathan, Maria Aurelia
SUMMARY: Teodoro Hernaez, Jr. filed a complaint against Teodoro
Hernaez, Sr. for acknowledgement and support with support pendent lite.
The RTC (after several appeals) ultimately ruled in favor of Hernaez, Jr.
Hernaez, Sr. then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, etc. with the
IAC. The IAC declared the RTC decision as null and void for lack of
summons by publication being an action in rem. Hernaez, Jr. argued that
publication is not required because an action for compulsory recognition of
minor natural children is not a special proceeding. SC ruled in favor of
Hernaez, Jr. An action for compulsory recognition being an ordinary civil
action, service of summons shall be as provided for under Rule 14.
DOCTRINE: An action for compulsory recognition of minor natural
children is not among cases of special proceedings mentioned in Section 1,
Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, such an action should be
governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions.
FACTS:
 Sept. 2, 1980 – Teodoro Hernaez, Jr., represented by Evelyn
Palmes (mother and natural guardian), filed a complaint with the
Juvenile and Domestic Court (now RTC) against Teodoro Hernaez, Sr.
for acknowledgment and support with support pendente lite.
 Mar. 23, 1984 RTC decision:
o Declared Hernaez, Jr. as the recognized natural child of
Hernaez, Sr.
o Ordered Hernaez, Sr. to give a monthly support of P400
starting Feb. 10, 1979 until Hernaez, Jr. reaches the age of majority
or completes his education or training. The total amount in arrears
shall be paid in 2 equal installments (month after decision becomes
final and executor, and 2 months after the 1st installment)
o The monthly support for June shall be paid within the first
5 days of July (same condition for the succeeding months), which
shall be deposited with the Cashier of the RTC of Manila +
Attorney’s fees
 June 29, 1984 – Hernaez, Sr. filed a notice of appeal of
the decision he received on May 31.
 Hernaez, Jr. moved to dismiss since the appeal was filed
beyond the reglementary period of 15 days (as per Sec. 39 of BP 129).
 Aug. 8, 1984 – Realizing the defect in his notice of
appeal, Hernaez, Sr. filed a Motion to Give Due Course to Appeal or
Petition for Relief.
 RTC denied as the motion was filed out of time and did
not comply with Sec. 3, Rule 38 (Relief from Judgments, Orders, or
Other Proceedings) of the Rules of Court.
 Sept. 19 – Hernaez, Sr. filed another Petition for Relief
from Judgment alleging that he was not aware of the decision of the
RTC. His wife, Estrella, together with their six children also filed a
Petition for Relief from Judgment and Motion to Intervene as they
were not included as parties in the instant case.
 RTC denied since the decision has already become final
and executory.
 Hernaez, Sr. and wife appealed. RTC ruled in favor of
them.
 Hernaez, Jr. filed his MR, which was also granted.
 Hernaez, Sr. filed a motion for clarification as to whether
their appeal was subsequently denied because of the order granting
Hernaez, Jr.’s appeal. RTC denied this motion and ruled in favor of
Hernaez, Jr.
 Hernaez, Jr. then filed a motion to require Hernaez, Sr. to
deposit support in arrears or be cited for contempt.
 Hernaez, Sr.’s counsel requested for 10 days for them to
comply with the decision. Instead of complying, they filed a petition
for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus or alternatively, an action for
the annulment of judgment with preliminary injunction with the IAC.
 IAC: declared the decision of the RTC null and void for
lack of summons by publication being an action in rem. Hernaez, Jr.’s
MR denied.
RULING: Petition granted.
Whether an action for compulsory recognition of minor natural
children is a special proceeding – NO, ordinary civil action
Whether the requirement of publication is necessary in an action for
compulsory acknowledgment and support of an illegitimate child – NO.
 Hernaez, Jr.: Publication is not required because said action is not
one of the instances enumerated in Sec. 1, Rule 72 requiring
publication of the petition before jurisdiction can be acquired by the
Court. Under the “expressio unius est exclussio alterius” principle on
statutory construction, this action should be considered a proceeding in
personam.
 SC: An action for compulsory recognition of minor natural
children is not among cases of special proceedings mentioned in
Section 1, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, such an action
should be governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions.
 The case at bar does not fall under Rule 105 (Judicial Approval of
Voluntary Recognition of Minor Natural Children) of the Rules of
Court since the same applies only to cases falling under Art. 281 of the
Civil Code where there has been a voluntary recognition of the minor
natural child, i.e., prior recognition of the minor natural child in a
document other than a record of birth or a will, which is absent in the
instant case.
 An action for compulsory recognition being an ordinary civil
action, service of summons on the putative parent shall be as provided
for under Rule 14 (Summons) and shall be brought against the putative
parent only.
Whether a notice of an action for compulsory recognition should also
be given to the wife and legitimate children of the putative parent – NO.
 In a case for compulsory recognition, the party in the best position
to oppose the same is the putative parent himself.
 Implicit in both Arts. 283 and 285 of the Civil Code is the general
rule that an action for compulsory recognition should the brought
against the putative father, the exceptions being the instances when
either the putative parent died during the minority of the child, or
when after the death of the parent a document should appear of which
nothing had been heard and in which either or both of the parents
recognize the child, in which cases the action is brought against the
putative parent's heirs.
 His heirs may be made party defendants only under the
circumstances mentioned in Art. 285.
NOTES:
 Art. 281, NCC. A child who is of age cannot be recognized without
his consent.
o When the recognition of a minor does not take place in a
record of birth or in a will, judicial approval shall be
necessary.
o A minor can in any case impugn the recognition within
four years following the attainment of his majority.
 Art 283, NCC. In any of the following cases, the father is obliged
to recognize the child as his natural child:
o In cases of rape, abduction or seduction, when the period
of the offense coincides more or less with that of the
conception;
o When the child is in continuous possession of status of a
child of the alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or
of his family;
o When the child was conceived during the time when the
mother cohabited with the supposed father;
o When the child has in his favor any evidence or proof that
the defendant is his father.
 Art 285, NCC. The action for the recognition of natural children
may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents,
except in the following cases:
o If the father or mother died during the minority of the
child, in which case the latter may file the action before
the expiration of four years from the attainment of his
majority;
o If after the death of the father or of the mother a
document should appear of which nothing had been heard
and in which either or both parents recognize the child.
o In this case, the action must be commenced within four
years from the finding of the document.
RAMON CHING v. RODRIGUEZ  02-105251 remains to be an ordinary civil action, and not a special
Facts:
 Respondent Heirs of Antonio Ching filed a Complaint against the
petitioners and all persons claiming rights or titles from Ramon Ching
(Ramon) and his successors-in-interest.   the nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the
 Respondents alleged:  (1) That Antonio died of a stab wound and
police investigators identified Ramon as the prime suspect and he now
stands as the lone accused in a criminal case for murder filed against
him. Warrants of arrest issued against him have remained unserved as
he is at large. Upon the authority of Article 919 of the New Civil Code
(NCC), the respondents concluded that Ramon can be legally
disinherited, hence, prohibited from receiving any share from the estate
of Antonio; (2) that Ramon had illegally transferred to his name the
titles to the properties of the estate of Antonio (e.g. Certificates of Time
Deposit, Titles of Condominium units, shares of stock of Po Wing
Properties) They sought to restrain the selling or alienating of property
that belongs to the estate of Antonio.  In an amended complaint, they
additionally prayed that they be declared the rightful owner of a
Certificate of Premium Plus Acquisition (CPPA) in the amount of
Php4M.
 Since Ramon is at large, his wife, Belen Dy Tan Ching, now
manages Antonio's estate. She has no intent to convey to the
respondents their shares in the estate of Antonio.
 The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the respondents'
Amended Complaint on the alleged ground that jurisdiction pertains to
a probate or intestate court and not to the RTC acting as an ordinary
court.
 Both RTC and CA denied the Motion to Dismiss. 
Issue: Whether the RTC, acting as an ordinary court, has jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the complaint. (YES)
Held: RTC and CA were correct. Petition denied.
Although the respondents' Complaint and Amended Complaint sought,
among others, the disinheritance of Ramon and the release in favor of the
respondents of the CPPA now under Metrobank's custody, Civil Case No.
proceeding pertaining to a settlement court.
An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil
action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased
person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of
application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.   A
special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status,
a right, or a particular fact. It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action
where a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or
the prevention or redress of a wrong. To initiate a special proceeding, a
petition and not a complaint should be filed.
Disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal cause
therefor shall be specified (NCC 916).  While the respondents in their
Complaint and Amended Complaint sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no
will or any instrument supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's
estate was ever mentioned. Hence, despite the prayer for Ramon's
disinheritance, Civil Case No. 02-105251 does not partake of the nature of a
special proceeding and does not call for the probate court's exercise of its
limited jurisdiction.
The nullification of the documents of sale and alienation of properties could
be achieved in an ordinary civil action, which in this specific case was
instituted to protect the respondents from the supposedly fraudulent acts of
Ramon.
C. Jurisdiction of Special Proceedings, BP 129 (amended by SECTION 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
RA 7691), secs. 19 (2), (4), (6), (7), (8), 33 (1) Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
BP 129 Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

SECTION 19 (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property,
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest
thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which
costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided,
is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
That where there are several claims or causes of action between the
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos out of the same or different transactions;
(P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such
gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);

(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided by
law; and

(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest,

damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One
hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other
abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(200,000.00).
Mendoza v. Teh which is “incapable of pecuniary estimation.” Both fall
G.R. No. 122646; Mar. 14, 1997; Francisco, J;  within the jurisdiction of the RTC. 
 Sec. 1 of Rule 73 (Rules on Venue of Estate proceedings)
 Petitioner Adelia Mendoza filed before the RTC of Batangas a likewise impliedly recognizes the jurisdiction of the RTC
complaint for reconveyance of title involving parcels of land in over petitions for granting letters of administration. On
Batangas which her deceased husband, Norberto left. She filed it the other hand, probate proceedings for settlement of
in her capacity as surviving wife and alleged that she should be estate are within the ambit of RTC or MTC, depending on
appointed as the judicial administrator of her husband’s estate. the net worth of the estate. 
 Respondents filed a motion to dismiss invoking lack of  By arguing that the allegation seeking appointment as
jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, estoppel, laches and administrator ousted the RTC of its jurisdiction, both
prescription. They claim that a special proceedings case for parties confuse jurisdiction with venue. The fact that
appointment of administrator of an estate cannot be incorporated Norberto resided in QC at the time of his death affects
in the ordinary action for reconveyance.  only the venue but not the jurisdiction of RTC. 
o Adelia opposed the motion, saying that seeking her  Likewise, an allegation seeking appointment as estate
appointment as administrator is only an incidental matter, administrator does not necessarily involve settlement
not even prayed for in the complaint. of estate that would have invited the exercise of limited
o Respondents argued that since her husband resided in QC jurisdiction of a probate court. It’s not even a
at the time of his death, appointment of estate jurisdictional fact that must be stated in an action for
administrator should be filed in QC. As such, RTC reconveyance. RTC of Batangas should have therefore at
Batangas has no jurisdiction.  least proceeded with the reconveyance suit instead of
 RTC Batangas dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, for dismissing the entire case. 
lack of jurisdiction on the ground that rules governing ordinary  It should be clarified that whether a particular matter
civil actions and special proceedings are different.  should be resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its
general jurisdiction or limited probate jurisdiction is not a
Issue: WON in an action for reconveyance, an allegation seeking jurisdictional issue but a mere question of procedure. 
appointment as administrator of an estate would oust the RTC of its  Considering that the RTC has jurisdiction, whether it be
jurisdiction over the whole case – NO.  on reconveyance suit or appointment of administrator, it was
improper for the RTC judge to dismiss the whole complaint
Ratio:  for alleged lack of jurisdiction.
 Under Section 19 of BP 129, RTCs shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction (1) in all civil actions in
which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation and (2) in all civil actions which involves title
to or possession of real property … where the assessed
value of the property involved exceeds P20,000. 
o In this case, the complaint is one for reconveyance, which
involves title to property worth millions of pesos. It also
involves appointment of an administrator of an estate
 Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario
G.R. No. 124320; 02 March 1999; Purisima, J.
I. Facts
 The petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the late
Yaptinchays, the owners-claimants of 2 lots in Cavite.
o They executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement over
the estate of the deceased Yaptinchays.
o They later discovered that a portion, if not all, of the
lots were titled in the name of Golden Bay Realty.
 The petitioners filed a Complaint for Annulment and/or
Declaration of Nullity of several TCTs and its Derivatives;
As Alternative Reconveyance of Realty with a Prayer for a
Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order with
Damages before the RTC.
 The petitioners later filed an Amended Complaint upon
learning that Golden Bay sold portions of the land in question.
The petitioners impleaded new and additional defendants and
added the TCTs to be annulled.  by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
 The RTC dismissed the Amended Complaint.
 Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC
granted the motion and allowed the petitioners to file a Second
Amended Complaint, which the promptly did.
 The private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
following grounds:
o The complaint failed to state a cause of action
o The petitioners did not have a right of action
o The petitioners have not established their status as
heirs
o The land being claimed is different from that of the
private respondents  ground that the complaint states no cause of action. (Travel
o The petitioners’ claim was barred by laches
 The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss (Order 1).
 The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it
was denied by the RTC (Order 2).
 The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 to the SC assailing both Orders of the RTC.
 Argument: The RTC acted with GAD in ruling that the issue of
heirship should first be determined before trial of the case could
proceed. The RTC should have proceeded with the trial and
simultaneously resolved the issue of heirship in the same case.
II. Issue/Held
Whether or not the issue of heirship can be resolved in an ordinary suit for
reconveyance of property - NO
III. Ratio
1. The declaration of heirship must be made in an administration
proceeding, and not in an independent civil action. (Litam v Rivera;
Solivio v CA)
o The declaration of heirship can be made only in a special
proceeding because the petitioners here are seeking the
establishment of a status or right.
o Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the ROC, a civil action is
defined as "one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong" while a special proceeding is "a remedy
particular fact." 
o The determination of who are the legal heirs of the
Yapinchays must take precedence over the action for
reconveyance. 
 Other than their allegation that they have been declared
the legal heirs of the Yaptinchays, the petitioners have not shown any
proof to support their claim.
 The RTC correctly dismissed Second Amended
Complaint due to failure to state a cause of action. 
 If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real
party in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the
Wide Associated Sales (Phils.), Inc. v. CA)
4. The proper remedy in this case should have been an Appeal, not a
Petition for Certiorari to the SC. An order of dismissal, be it right
or wrong, is a final order, which is subject to appeal and not a
proper subject of certiorari. Where appeal is available as a remedy,
certiorari will not lie.
Petition DISMISSED.
Isabel P. Portugal and Jose Douglas Portugal Jr., v Leonila Portugal-
Beltran
G.R. No. 155555; 16 August 2005; Carpio-Morales, J.
FACTS
 Jose Q. Portugal married twice in his lifetime: one on 25
November 1942 with Paz Lazo and the second one on 22 May
1948 with petitioner Isabel de la Puerta. In 1949, Isabel gave birth
to herein petitioner Jose Douglas Portugal, Jr. while in 1950, Paz
gave birth to herein respondent Leonila Perpetua Aleli Portugal.
 In 1968, Jose and his siblings executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition and Waiver of Rights over the estate of their father who
died intestate. In the deed, Jose’s siblings waived their rights,
interests, and participation over the 155 sq.m. land in Caloocan.
Consequently, the Registry of Deeds for Caloocan issued TCT No.
34292 in the name of “Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C. Lazo.”
 Paz predeceased Jose who died in 1985. In 1988, respondent
Leonila executed an “Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of
Estate of Deceased Person” adjudicating to herself the Caloocan
property. Subsequently, Jose’s title was cancelled and a new TCT
was issued in the name of “Leonila Portugal-Beltran, married to
Merardo M. Beltran, Jr.”
 Upon learning in 1996 that about the death of Jose and the self-
adjudication made by respondent Leonila, petitioners filed before
the RTC Caloocan a complaint against respondent for the
annulment of the Affidavit of Adjudication and the TCT issued in
her name.
 Petitioners alleged that respondent is not related whatsoever to
Jose, hence, not entitled to inherit the Caloocan parcel of land and
that she perjured herself when she made false representations in
her Affidavit of Adjudication.
Following respondent’s filing of her answer, the trial court issued a Pre-
Trial Order with the following issues:
 Which of the two marriages contracted by the deceased Jose
Portugal is valid?
 Which of the plaintiff … Jose Portugal Jr. and defendant Leonila P.
Beltran is the legal heir of Jose Portugal Sr.?
 Whether or not the TCT issued in favor of Leonila was issued in
due course and can still be contested by the plaintiffs
 Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their claims under the
complaint
 RTC Caloocan dismissed the case without addressing the issues
stated in the Pre-Trial Order. The grounds for dismissal are lack of
cause of action since the status and right as putative heirs of the
petitioners had not been established before a probate court, and
lack of jurisdiction over the case, following the ruling in Heirs v
Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay v Del Rosario (“… the establishment
of a status, a right, or a particular fact is remedied through a special
proceeding, not an ordinary civil action…Their status and right as
putative heirs of the decedent not having been established, as yet,
the Complaint failed to state a cause of action. Xxxx The court, not
being a probate court, is without jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff’s
cause to establish their status and right herein.”).
 Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals invoking Cariño v
Cariño (“…the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even
after the death of the parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly
instituted to question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is
essential to the determination of the case.”).
 CA affirmed the dismissal of the case and found that Cariño is
inapplicable (“…the main issue in Cariño was the validity of two
marriages, and the award of death benefits was a mere incident to
the question of validity. In the present case, the main issue is the
annulment of title to property…The status and rights of the parties
have not been definitively established as yet… Necessarily and
naturally, such questions as to such status or right must be properly
ventilated in an appropriate special proceeding, not in an ordinary
civil action…”).
Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners have to institute a special proceeding to determine their
status as heirs before they can pursue the case for annulment of
respondent’s Affidavit of Adjudication and of the TCT issued in her name
[NO]
RULING AND RATIO
Following a review of jurisprudence, the Court declared that if the special
proceedings are pending, or if there are no special proceedings filed but
there is a need to file one, then the determination of, among other issues,
heirship should be raised and settled in said special proceedings. Where
special proceedings had been instituted but had been finally closed and
terminated, however, or if a putative heir has lost the right to have himself
declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and can no longer ask for its
re-opening, then an ordinary civil action can be filed for his declaration as
heir in order to bring about the annulment of the partition or distribution or
adjudication of a property or properties belonging to the estate of the
deceased.
Applying the aforementioned doctrine in the present case, there is no doubt
that a probate or intestate court has jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs
of the deceased. Since it appears, however, that the only property of the
intestate estate of Jose is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it to a
special proceeding which could be long just and not expeditious just to
establish the right of the petitioners is not only impractical but burdensome
to the estate as well which will incur the costs and expenses of an
administration proceeding.
There being no compelling reason to still subject Portugal’s estate to
administration proceedings since a determination of the status and rights as
heirs of petitioners could be established in the civil case filed by petitioners,
the trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented by the
parties and render a decision thereon upon the issues it defined during pre-
trial.
PETITION GRANTED. CA DECISION SET ASIDE. CASE REMANDED
TO RTC CALOOCAN FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
REYES V. ENRIQUEZ
10 April 2008; Puno, C.J.
I. Facts
 The case involved a dispute over a parcel of land in Cebu.
o PETITIONERS (Faustino Reyes, Esperidion Reyes,
Julieta Rivera, and Eutiquio Dico, Jr.)  claim the property
as heirs of DIONISIA Reyes who co-owned the property
with ANACLETO Cabrera. Their claim is supported by
the following: (1) Extrajudicial Settlement executed by
PETITIONERS, (2) Deed of Segregation of Real Estate
and Confirmation of Sale executed by PETITIONERS
and other heirs of ANACLETO, and (3) TCTs issued in
the name of each of the PETITIONERS.
o RESPONDENTS (Peter Enriquez, Deborah Enriquez, and
Spouses Fernandez) claim the property as predecessors-
in-interest of ANACLETO Cabrera and his wife who
owned a ½ pro indiviso share over the property. They
allege that ANACLETO and his wife were survived by
two children, Etta and Graciana Cabrera. Graciana sold
her share over the land to Etta. Upon Etta’s death, the
property was inherited by Etta’s husband, Peter Enriquez,
and her daughter, Deborah. Peter and Deborah then sold a
part of the property to Spouses Fernandez.
  When the Spouses Fernandez attempted to register their
share in the property, they were unable to do so because
of the following: (1) separate affidavits executed by
ANACLETO and DIONISIA stating the actual size of the
portion comprising the share of ANACLETO, (2) and the
other documents supporting the PETITIONERS’ claim.
 RESPONDENTS filed an action for annulment of the
aforementioned documents and for damages with the
RTC. The complaint also prayed for repartition and
resubdivision.
 Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss by
PETITIONERS, the RTC dismissed the complaint on the
ground that the RESPONDENTS were actually seeking to
be declared heirs of ANACLETO. RESPONDENTS
cannot demand partition without being declared heirs in a
separate special proceeding.
 An appeal  was filed with the CA. The CA reversed the
RTC.
 PETITIONERS filed a petition for review on certiorari.
II. Issue
WON RESPONDENTS have to institute a special proceeding to determine
their status as heirs of ANACLETO before they can file an action to annul
the subject documents – YES
III. Held
Petition is granted. CA Decision is reversed. RTC Decision is reinstated.
III. Ratio
 A declaration of heirship is improper in an ordinary civil action
since the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court in a special
proceeding. While a declaration of heirship was not a relief prayed
for in the RESPONDENTS’ complaint for annulment of
documents, the allegations show that the right asserted by
RESPONDENTS (Peter and Deborah Enriquez) are their right as
heirs of ANACLETO Cabrera. The records do not show that a
special proceeding declaring their status as heirs was filed. 
 The dismissal of the action was proper because there is a lack of
cause of action when a case is instituted by parties who are not real
parties in interest. Peter and Deborah Enriquez cannot be deemed
real parties in interest since their status as heirs must be determined
in a special proceeding.
 This case is different from Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran because
(1) nothing in the records of the case shows that the disputed
property is the only property left by ANACLETO, and (2)
respondents Peter and Deborah Enriquez did not present any
evidence in the ordinary civil action to establish their rights as
heirs. 
o In Portugal, the Court held that the parties’ status as heirs
can be determined in the ordinary civil action because it
appeared from the records of the case that the disputed
property was the only property left by the decedent and
the parties had already adduced evidence establishing
their right as heirs.  
Spouses Alcantara v. Spouses Belen, 824 SCRA 266
FACTS:
 In 2005, Spouses Alcantara filed before the RTC a Complaint
against Spouses Belen for the quieting of title, reconveyance of
possession, and accounting of harvest with damages. Petitioners
argued that their neighbors, respondents herein, had extended the
latter's possession up to the land titled to Spouses Alcantara, and
usurped the harvests therefrom.
 Spouses Alcantara claimed that they were the registered owners of
Lot No. 16932, 3,887-square-meter parcel of land planted with
trees. Elvira Alcantara traced her ownership of the property to her
inheritance from her mother, Asuncion Alimon.
 In addition to the certificate of title, Spouses Alcantara submitted
as evidence the Tax Declarations of the property registered to them
and their predecessors-in-interest, receipts of their payments for
real property taxes, and a Sketch/Special Plan of Lot No. 16932
prepared by Geodetic Engineer Augusto C. Rivera.
 On the strength of a sales agreement called Kasulatan ng Bilihang
Tuluyan ng Lupa,  respondents countered Spouses Alcantara's
claims over the property. Spouses Belen alleged that they bought
the property from its prior owners. Even though respondents did
not have any certificate of title over the property, they supported
their claim of ownership with various Tax Declarations under the
name of their predecessors-in-interest. Spouses Belen also
submitted a Sketch/Special Plan of Lot No. 16932 prepared by
Geodetic Engineer Hector C. Santos.
 Furthermore, Spouses Belen attacked the OCT of Asuncion
Alimon. They claimed that fraud attended the issuance of a Free
Patent to her, considering that the Belens had occupied the
property ever since. According to respondents, they already
protested her title still pending before the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
 RTC gave more weight to the certificate of title and Tax
Declarations presented by petitioners, declaring them the absolute
owners of Lot No. 16932
 The CA then declared that Asuncion Alimon was not a possessor
or cultivator of the subject land, a fact that voided the Free Patent
issued to her, as well as the resulting OCT and TCT. The appellate
court additionally held that Elvira Alcantara was not a legal heir of
Asuncion Alimon.
ISSUE: 
Whether or not a certificate of title may be sufficiently defeated by tax
declarations and deeds of sale.
W/n respondents can properly assail, for the first time on appeal, the right of
Elvira Alcantara to succeed Asuncion Alimon.
HELD:
Based on established jurisprudence, we rule that the certificate of title of
petitioners is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of their ownership of
the property. The irrelevant Tax Declarations of Spouses Belen cannot
defeat TCT No. T-36252 of Spouses Alcantara, as it is binding and
conclusive upon the whole world. Cureg v. Intermediate Appellate Court
explains:
As against an array of proofs consisting of tax declarations and/or tax
receipts which are not conclusive evidence of ownership nor proof of the
area covered therein, an original certificate of title indicates true and legal
ownership by the registered owners over the disputed premises. Petitioners'
OCT No. P-19093 should be accorded greater weight as against the tax
declarations xx x offered by private respondents in support of their claim 
In Bagayas v. Bagayas, this Court reiterated that courts must refrain from
making a declaration of heirship in an ordinary civil action because "matters
relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in a special
proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such rights." 
There is no allegation on record that, as regards the parties, a special
proceeding was instituted but was finally closed and terminated. In the
proceedings before the RTC, none of the parties exhaustively presented
evidence regarding the issue of filiation, save for the above-cited testimony
of Margarito Belarmino. Neither did the trial court make any
pronouncement as regards that issue. Given, therefore, the dearth of
evidence and discussion on filiation a quo, the CA should not have
adjudicated the status of Elvira Alcantara as a legitimate daughter or an
adopted child in succeeding to the rights of Asuncion Alimon.
D. Applicability of Rules of Civil Action, Rule 72, sec. 2

RULE 72

Section 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. — In the absence

of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary
actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in
special proceedings.
REPUBLIC v. CA
G.R. No. 163604; May 06, 2005; Carpio-Morales, J.
Digest prepared by Jackie Canlas
FACTS:
 Ormoc RTC granted the petition of Apolinaria Malinao for the
Declaration of Presumptive Death of her Absentee Spouse (9 yrs)
Clemente Jomoc. It cited Family Code Article 41 par. 2 which provides
that for the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage, the
present spouse must institute a summary proceeding for the declaration
of presumptive death of the absentee spouse.
 The Republic (OSG) filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC
disapproved such Notice noting that the present case is a special
proceeding which requires that a record of appeal be filed and served
pursuant to Section 2 (a) Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Republic’s MR was denied.
 The Republic filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA
contending that the declaration of presumptive death of a person under
Article 41 of the Family Code is not a special proceeding.  be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical
 The CA affirmed RTC.
 Procedural: Republic failed to attach (1) a certified true copy of the
assailed Order denying Republic’s MR and (2) the RTC order
declaring Jomoc presumptively dead.
 Substantive: The petition does not seek the enforcement or the
protection of a right or the prevention of redress of a wrong.
Neither does it involve a demand or right or a cause of action that
can be enforced against any person.
 Republic filed a petition before the SC, arguing that the petition for
declaration of presumptive death of an absentee spouse is not included
in the list of cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed and a record on
appeal is required for an appeal to be perfected, as enumerated under
the Rule 109 of the Revised ROC.
ISSUE: WON a petition for the declaration of the presumptive death is
in the nature of a special proceeding – NO.
RULING: CA REVERSED. CASE REMANDED.
RATIO:
Relevant laws cited by the SC:
1. ROC Rule 72, Sec. 1 – Subject matter of special proceedings. - (m)
Declaration of absence and death;
ROC Rule 72, Sec. 2 – Applicability of rules of civil actions. – In the absence of
special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be as far
as practicable, applicable in special proceedings.
2. Family Code, Article 41, par. 2 – For the purpose of contracting
the subsequent marriage…, the spouse present must institute a
summary proceeding… for  the declaration of presumptive death of
the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of a reappearance of
the absent spouse. 
2. ROC, Rule 41, Sec. 2, on Modes of Appeal.-
a. Ordinary appeal – xxx No record on appeal shall be re required
except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or
separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require.
4. Title XI of the Family Code - Summary Judicial Proceedings in
Family Law, Article 238 – Unless modified by the SC, the
procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases provided for in
this Codes requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall
rules.
 By the RTC’s citation of Article 41 of the Family Code, the
petition of Apolinaria Jomoc is therefore, a summary proceeding under
the Family Code as her purpose was to contract a valid subsequent
marriage, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court
appeal for which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a
summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a Notice of Appeal from the
trial court‘s order sufficed.
On the alleged procedural flaws of the petition:
 Failure to attach the Order denying the MR is not fatal, for
procedural rules are not be applied in a technical sense. CA should have
just directed the Republic to comply with the rule.
 Contrary to CA’s observation, Republic was not assailing the
Order of declaration, but only the Order disapproving the Notice of
Appeal.
Sheker v. Estate of Alice O. Sheker
G.R. No. 157912; December 13, 2007; Austria-Martinez, J.
Digest by Eka
Facts
 RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice O. Sheker
and issued an order for all the creditors to file their respective
claims against the estate.
 Sheker filed a contingent claim for agent’s commission due him
amounting to approximately P206,250 for the sale of certain
parcels of land belonging to the estate and P275,000 as
reimbursement for expenses in the course of negotiating the
realties.
 The executrix of the Estate moved for the dismissal of Sheker’s
money claim on the grounds that (1) the requisite docket fee had
not been paid, (2) Sheker failed to attach a certification against
non-forum shopping, and (3) Sheker failed to attach a written
explanation why the money claim was not filed and served
personally.
 RTC issued an order dismissing without prejudice Sheker’s money
claim based on the grounds advanced by the respondent. Sheker’s
MR was denied.
 Sheker filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the SC
maintaining that RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate
proceeding the rules requiring a certification of non-forum
shopping, a written explanation for non-personal filing, and the
payment of docket fees upon filing. He insists that Sec 2, Rule 72
provides that rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special
proceedings only in a suppletory manner.
Issues/Ratio
 W/N the rules governing ordinary civil actions apply to special
proceedings – YES
o In the absence of special provisions governing special
proceedings, the rules governing ordinary civil actions
shall be applicable to special proceedings, as far as
practicable. This means that rules in ordinary actions may
be applied as much as possible and where doing so would
not pose an obstacle to the special proceedings. Nowhere
in the Rules does it categorically say that rules in ordinary
actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to special
proceedings.
o The rules requiring a certification of non-forum shopping
for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written
explanation for non-personal service and filing, and the
payment of filing fees would not in any way obstruct
probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special
proceedings.
 W/N RTC erred in dismissing the money claim for Sheker’s failure
to attach a certification against non-forum shopping – YES
o The certification of non-forum shopping is required only
for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. A
contingent money claim against the estate of a decedent is
not an initiatory pleading. The whole probate proceeding
was initiated upon the filing of the petition for allowance
of the decedent’s will.
o A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main
action for the settlement of the decedent’s estate; more so
if the claim is contingent since the claimant cannot even
institute a separate action for a mere contingent claim.
Sheker’s claim not being an initiatory pleading does not
require a certification against non-forum shopping.
 W/N RTC erred in dismissing the money claim for Sheker’s failure
to pay the filing fees – YES
o Pascual v. CA: The trial court has jurisdiction to act on a
money claim (attorney’s fees) against an estate for
services rendered by a lawyer to the administratix to assist
her in fulfilling her duties to the estate even without
payment of separate docket fees because the filing fees
shall constitute a lien on the judgment or the trial court
may order the payment of such filing fees within a
reasonable time.
 W/N RTC erred in dismissing the money claim for Sheker’s failure
to attach a written explanation – YES
o Maceda v. De Guzman: Sec 11, Rule 13 gives the court
the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed
if the other modes of service or filing were not resorted to
and no written explanation was made as to why personal
service was not done in the first place.  The exercise of
 discretion must, necessarily consider the practicability of
personal service, for Sec 11 itself begins with the clause
“whenever practicable”.
o In the present case, Sheker holds office in Salcedo
Village, Makati City, while counsel for respondent and
the RTC which rendered the assailed orders are both in
Iligan City.  RTC should have taken judicial notice of the
great distance between said cities and realized that it is
indeed not practicable to serve and file the money claim
personally. The failure of petitioner to submit a written
explanation why service has not been done personally,
may be considered as superfluous and the RTC should
have exercised its discretion under Sec 11, Rule 13, not to
dismiss the money claim of petitioner, in the interest of
substantial justice.

Petition granted, orders reversed and set aside.

Hilado vs. CA
Summary: Hilado and his other co-petitioners filed a motion to be
furnished copies of all processes and orders of the proceedings in the
settlement of the estate of Benedicto Benedicto. They alleged that because
they were the plaintiffs in 2 cases filed against the defendant, thus they are
entitled to intervene in special proceeding. The SC ultimately found that
they weren’t interested persons who are entitled to intervene in the
settlement of Benedicto’s estate.
Doctrine: Although the rule on intervention is in the Rules of Civil
Procedure, it may still apply in special proceedings. S2, R72 provides that
“in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary
actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable to special proceedings”.
Thus, notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72, intervention as set forth under
Rule 19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent whose credit is based on
a contingent claim. The definition of intervention under Rule 19 simply
does not accommodate contingent claims
 Roberto Benedicto was survived by his wife, Julita Benedicto, and
only daughter, Francisca Benedicto-Paulino and by 2 pending civil
cases filed against him by Hilado and other petitioners
o The first, Civil Case No. 95-9137, was then pending with
the RTC of Bacolod with Hilado as one of the plaintiffs
o The second, Civil Case No. 11178, was then pending with
the RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 44, with petitioners Lopez
Sugar Corporation and First Farmers Holding Corporation as one
of the plaintiffs
 Julia Benedicto filed a petition for the issuance of letters
of administration in her favor, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 78 of
the ROC with the RTC Manila
o The petition acknowledged that the value of the assets of
the decedent to be P5 Million, net of liabilities
 The Manila RTC appointed Julita as administrator – she
submitted an Inventory of the Estate, Lists of Personal and Real
Properties, and Liabilities of the Estate of her deceased husband
o In the List of Liabilities attached to the inventory, Julita
included the 2 pending cases being litigated before the Bacolod
courts with the amounts of liability: P136,045,772.50 for Civil
Case No. 95-9137 and P35,198,697.40 for Civil Case No. 11178
 The petitioners filed a Manifestation/Motion Ex
Abundanti Cautela in the Manila RTC, praying that they be furnished
with copies of all processes and orders pertaining to the intestate
proceedings
o Julita Benedicto opposed - disputing the personality of
petitioners to intervene in the intestate proceedings of her husband
o The petitioners, even before the Manila RTC acted on the
manifestation/motion, filed an omnibus motion praying that the
Manila RTC set a deadline for the submission by private
respondent of the required inventory of the decedents estate, and
other pleadings and motions, alleging lapses on the part of Julita
in her administration of the estate and for having submitted an
unverified and incomplete inventory (3 reliefs)
 RTC MANILA: denied the manifestation/motion of the
petitioners because they are not interested parties within the
contemplation of the ROC to intervene in the intestate proceedings
o The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA –
arguing that they had a right to intervene because the decedent
was a defendant in the civil cases in the Bacolod RTC
 CA: dismissed the petition – the allowance/disallowance
of an intervention is addressed to the sound discretion of the court 
o Also, the claims of petitioners against the decedent
were in fact contingent or expectant, as these were still
pending litigation in separate proceedings before other courts
W/N the petitioners have a right to intervene - NO
 SC: the rule on intervention (S1, R19 of the ROC – Rules of Civil
Procedure) requires that an intervenor has a legal interest in the matter
in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest
against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court
o However, according to jurisprudence, the interest of
the intervenor must be actual and material, direct and
immediate, and not simply contingent and expectant
 Although the rule on intervention is in the Rules of Civil
Procedure, it may still apply in special proceedings.
o S2, R72 provides that “in the absence of special
provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be,
as far as practicable, applicable to special proceedings”
 Thus, notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72, intervention that by the time judgment is rendered in their favor, the estate of the
as set forth under Rule 19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent decedent would have already been distributed, or diminished to the
whose credit is based on a contingent claim.  extent that the judgment could no longer be enforced against it
o The definition of intervention under Rule 19 simply does
not accommodate contingent claims
 RE: entitlement to notice of all processes and orders issued in
W/N they are entitled to the reliefs prayed for – SOME connection with the intestate proceedings, as well as the pleadings filed
by the administrator of the estate – they are not entitled to such 
 Even if they are not entitled to intervene, they may still be entitled o The claims against the decedent were based on tort, thus
to the reliefs prayed for if such relief sought is necessary to protect their they do not fall within the class of claims to be filed under the
interrst in the estate notice to creditors required under Rule 86
 In the Rules of Special Proceedings: interested persons or any o Also, they only have an inchoate right – thus they cannot
persons interested in the estate to participate in varying capacities in the intervene
testate or intestate proceedings.  However, in Hilado vs Judge Reyes, the Court allowed
o (1) Section 1, Rule 79, which recognizes the right of any them to have access  to the records of the intestate proceedings under
person interested to oppose the issuance of letters testamentary S2, R135 
and to file a petition for administration;  o “the records of every court of justice shall be public
o (2) Section 3, Rule 79, which mandates the giving of records and shall be available for the inspection of any interested
notice of hearing on the petition for letters of administration to the person” 
known heirs, creditors, and to any other persons believed to have o The Court ruled that petitioners were interested persons
interest in the estate;  entitled to access the court records in the intestate proceedings
o (3) Section 1, Rule 76, which allows a person interested in o Allowing creditors, contingent or otherwise, access to the
the estate to petition for the allowance of a will;  records of the intestate proceedings is an eminently preferable
o (4) Section 6 of Rule 87, which allows an individual precedent than mandating the service of court processes and
interested in the estate of the deceased to complain to the court of pleadings upon them
the concealment, embezzlement, or conveyance of any asset of the  Nevertheless, the Rules on Special Proceedings do require
decedent, or of evidence of the decedents title or interest therein;  notice to any or all interested parties the petitioners as interested parties
o (5) Section 10 of Rule 85, which requires notice of the will be entitled to such notice
time and place of the examination and allowance of the o The instances when notice has to be given to interested
Administrators account to persons interested;  parties are provided in: 
o (6) Section 7(b) of Rule 89, which requires the court to (1) Sec. 10, Rule 85 in reference to the time and place of examining and
give notice to the persons interested before it may hear and grant a allowing the account of the executor or administrator; 
petition seeking the disposition or encumbrance of the properties (2) Sec. 7(b) of Rule 89 concerning the petition to authorize the executor or
of the estate; and  administrator to sell personal estate, or to sell, mortgage or otherwise
o (7) Section 1, Rule 90, which allows any person interested encumber real estates; and; 
in the estate to petition for an order for the distribution of the (3) Sec. 1, Rule 90 regarding the hearing for the application for an order for
residue of the estate of the decedent, after all obligations are either distribution of the estate residue.
satisfied or provided for
 Anybody with a contingent claim based on a pending
action for quasi-delict against a decedent may be reasonably concerned
 RE: setting a deadline for the submission of a verified and
complete inventory – CANNOT be granted 
o Section 1 of Rule 83 requires the administrator to
return to the court a true inventory and appraisal of all the
real and personal estate of the deceased within three (3)
months from appointment, while Section 8 of Rule 85 requires
the administrator to render an account of his administration
within one (1) year from receipt of the letters testamentary or
of administration.
o Still, even if the administrator did delay in the
performance of these duties in the context of dissipating the assets
of the estate, there are protections enforced and available under
Rule 88 to protect the interests of those with contingent claims
against the estate.
o Concerning complaints against the general competence of
the administrator, the proper remedy is to seek the removal of the
administrator in accordance with Section 2, Rule 82
o While the provision is silent as to who may seek with the
court the removal of the administrator, we do not doubt that a
creditor, even a contingent one, would have the personality to
seek such relief. After all, the interest of the creditor in the estate
relates to the preservation of sufficient assets to answer for the
debt, and the general competence or good faith of the
administrator is necessary to fulfill such purpose.

Reference:

Bautista, Antonio R. Basic Special Proceedings (Manila: Rex Book

Store, 2004) 1-2.