Heirs of Ypon v.

Ricaforte

FACTS:

Magdaleno Ypon died intestate, childless, and leaving properties. Gaudioso Ricaforte claimed that he was the
sole heir of Magdaleno. He executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, and caused the cancellation of the titles
covering Magdaleno’s real properties.

Petitioners filed a complaint for the cancellation of title and reconveyance against Gaudioso. In his Answer,
Gaudioso alleged that petitioners were not real-parties-in-interest as there was no showing that they have
been declared as Magdaleno’s lawful heirs.

The RTC ruled that while the petitioners had established their relationship with Magdaleno in a previous
special proceeding, this did not mean that they could already be considered as his compulsory heirs.

ISSUE:

Did the trial court have the authority to determine Magdaleno’s lawful heirs?

RULING:

NO. The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper special
proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property. This
must take precedence over the action for recovery of possession and ownership. 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. 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 by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration of
heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the
establishment of a status or right.

By way of exception, the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship
may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, 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, and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment thereon or when a special proceeding had
been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened.

In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or those of similar nature, appear to exist. Hence, there lies the
need to institute the proper special proceeding in order to determine the heirship of the parties involved,
ultimately resulting to the dismissal of the complaint.

Since a determination of heirship cannot be made in an ordinary action for recovery of ownership and/or
possession, the dismissal of the complaint was altogether proper.
 Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

FACTS:

Deceased Spouses Reynaldo and Ester left several properties. The respondents, their children, executed an
Extrajudicial Settlement of the estate of their parents.

Petitioner Anita is a co-depositor of Reynaldo in a Joint Account with BPI. When Reynaldo died, said account
continued to be in active status. BPI notified Anita that said account with Reynaldo would become dormant if
no transaction will be made. As such, Anita withdrew her funds. Due to conflict of claims between the heirs
and Anita, BPI withheld the release of the funds.

Anita filed before the RTC a petition for the (1) settlement of the intestate estate of the late Reynaldo; and (2)
issuance of letters administration to any competent neutral willing person other than the heirs of Reynaldo.
The heirs moved to dismiss.

ISSUE:

Does the RTC, as a probate court having limited jurisdiction, incompetent to rule on issues involving inclusion
or exclusion of certain properties in the inventory of the estate of the decedent, and to adjudge the question of
title over properties?

RULING:

NO. While it may be true that the RTC, acting in a restricted capacity and exercising limited jurisdiction as a
probate court, is competent to issue orders involving inclusion or exclusion of certain properties in the
inventory of the estate of the decedent, and to adjudge, albeit, provisionally the question of title over
properties, it is no less true that such authority conferred upon by law and reinforced by jurisprudence,
should be exercised judiciously, with due regard and caution to the peculiar circumstances of each individual
case.

The facts obtaining in this case call for the determination of the ownership of the funds contained in the BPI
joint account; for the intestate estate of Reynaldo has already been extrajudicially settled by his heirs. The
trial court, in this case, exercised sound judiciousness when it ruled out the inclusion of the BPI joint account
in the estate of the decedent.

Equally important is the rule that the determination of whether or not a particular matter should be resolved
by the CFI in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is in reality
not a jurisdictional question. It is in essence a procedural question involving a mode of practice "which
may be waived."

Such waiver introduces the exception to the general rule that while the probate court exercises limited
jurisdiction, it may settle questions relating to ownership when the claimant and all other parties having
legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the question to the
probate court for adjudgment.

Such waiver was evident from the fact that the respondents sought for affirmative relief before the court a
quo as they claimed ownership over the funds in the joint account of their father to the exclusion of his co-
depositor. Respondents impliedly agreed to submit the issue of ownership before the trial court, acting as an
intestate court, when they raised an affirmative relief before it. To reiterate, the exercise of the trial court of
its limited jurisdiction is not jurisdictional, but procedural; hence, waivable.
 Bautista v. Bautista

FACTS:

Teodora Rosario owned a parcel of land in Pangasinan. She died intestate, leaving behind her spouse, Isidro
and five children. Isidro, Pacita, Gil, Alegria and Angelica executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition. Teofilo
was excluded.

Alegria and Angelica who, under the Deed, acquired all of the property, sold the same to Pacita and her
husband Pedro. Pacita, with Pedro’s conformity, conveyed the property to Cesar, Pedro’s nephew.

Teofilo then filed a complaint against Alegria, Angelica, Pedro, Priscilla (wife of deceased brother, Gil), and
Gil’s children. Teofilo claimed that he was defrauded and that the sale between Pacita and Cesar was
fictitious.

The CA ruled that Teofilo’s action has already prescribed.

ISSUE:

Has Teofilo’s right to nullify the Deed of Extajudicial Partition already prescribed?

RULING:

NO. The deed of extra-judicial partition in the case at bar being invalid, the action to have it annulled does not
prescribe.

Since it is invalid, it transmitted no rights to Teofilo’s co-heirs. Consequently, the subsequent transfer by
Angelica and Alegria of the property to Pacita and her husband Pedro, as well as the transfer of the property
to Cesar is invalid, hence, conferring no rights upon the transferees under the principle of nemo dat quod non
habet – no one can give what he does not have.