SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Cases Doctrine
Fernandez  Rules regarding the preparations, filing and service of applications, motions, and
vs. Maravilla other papers, are the same in civil actions and in special proceedings.
 Application of Section 2, Rule 72.
Alfredo  While the rule on intervention can be made applicable in special proceedings cases,
Hilado vs. particularly, in a settlement of estate cases, it should be by way of intervention by
CA way of money claim under Rule 86 (arising from contracts).
o Whether the claim is contingent or not, due or not, written or not implied, so
long as the credit arises from a contract --- a direct money claim can be filed
against the estate.
 If it were an intervention by way of torts (which has not yet been decided and
terminated during the lifetime of the decedent), intervention cannot be made to apply
by suppletory application in the settlement of estate case because the claim is
merely inchoate and contingent.
 Rule 87 mandates that the torts case shall be terminated and upon such, if there is a
favorable judgement to the plaintiff, then file the claim against the estate.
Heirs of  An order appointing an administrator of a deceased person’s estate is a final
Zayco and determination of the rights of the parties in connection with the administration,
Hinlo vs. management, and settlement of the decedent’s estate. It is a final order ---
Hinlo appealable.
 The proper remedy is to appeal via NOTICE OF APPEAL and RECORD ON
APPEAL which both should be filed within 30 days from the receipt of the notice of
judgement or final order. (this is because a settlement of estate case is a special
proceeding with more than one stage/proceeding
 The applicability of the Neypes Doctrine decided in Neypes vs. CA also applies in
special proceedings cases.
Republic vs.  A RECORD ON APPEAL in special proceedings is required only in cases where
Nishina multiple appeals may arise.
Republic vs.  In SUMMARY PROCEDURE, when the judgement is received by the parties, the
Narceda judgement becomes final and executory.
 Upon receipt, the proper remedy is to file a Rule 65 Petition (certiorari) since it is the
plain, adequate, and speedy remedy.
 The filing of appeal, being a wrong remedy, will not toll the period to file the certiorari
(60 days from the receipt of judgement or from the denial of MR whether or not it is
necessary)
Garcia-Fule  Reside – personal, actual, material, physical habitation of the decedent, his actual
vs. CA residence or place of abode. It is not the legal residence or domicile.
Benatiro vs.  When the heirs did not receive notice with respect to the partition of the property,
Heirs of those who did not participate in the partition may file an ACTION FOR ANNULMENT
Cuyos; OF JUDGEMENT based on the compromise agreement.
o The ground was lack of due process because those who were not able to
participate were denied of their right to due process.
Reillo vs.  No extrajudicial settlement shall bind any person who has not participated or was not
San Jose notified by this extrajudicial settlement.
Cruz vs.  There is lack of consent because the one who gave consent was deprived of proper
Cruz mental capacity.
 Since the deed of EJS was a total nullity because it was defective, then it is
imprescriptible. The Court took cognizance of the issue on literacy of Concepcion
which really deprived her of her true inheritance and not so much that she was
defrauded
Ramos vs.  G.R.: The probate jurisdiction of the probate court relates only to matters having to
CA do with the settlement of the estate and probate of wills of deceased persons, and
the appointment and removal of administrators, executors, guardians and trustees.
 o The approval by the probate court of the conditional sale was without
prejudice to the filing of the proper action for consolidation of ownership
and/or reformation of instrument in the proper court within the statutory
period of prescription.
Romero vs. G.R.: The question as to titles of properties should not be passed upon in intestate or
CA; testate proceedings, but should be ventilated in a separate action.

Agtarap vs. XPNs:

Agtarap 1. Probate court may provisionally pass upon the question of inclusion in, or exclusion
from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to its final determination
in a separate action;
2. The probate court is competent to decide the question of ownership if the
interested parties are ALL HEIRS, or the question is one of collation, or
advancement, or the parties consent to the probate court’s assumption of
jurisdiction and the rights of third parties are not impaired.
Heirs of  Determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in the
Ypon vs. proper special proceedings in court, not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership
Ricaforte or possession of property.
 As an exception, the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the
determination of heirship may be dispensed with
o When the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the
trial court upon presenting evidence and the RTC rendered judgement
thereon; or
o When a special proceeding has been instituted but had been finally closed
and terminated, and hence, cannot be reopened. (none apply to this case)
Reyes vs.  Although a probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties, it can
Mosqueda determine whether or not the properties should be included in the inventory to be
administered. However, such determination is not conclusive and is subject to the
final decision in a separate action.
De Leon vs.  Should an heir or person interested in the properties of a deceased person duly call
CA the courts’ attention to the fact that certain properties, rights or credits have been left
out in the inventory, it is likewise the courts’ duty to hear the observations, with
power to determine if such observations should be attended to or not and if the
properties referred to therein belong prima facie to the intestate, but no such
determination is final and ultimate in nature as to the ownership of said properties
De Perez v. 5 Evidence needed before a will may be reprobated in the Philippines:
Tolete
1. The due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws;
2. The testator has his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines;
3. The will has been admitted to probate in such country;
4. The fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court; and
5. The laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of will.

 Separate wills which contain essentially the same provisions and pertain to
properties which in all probability are conjugal in nature, practical considerations
dictate their joint probate.
Medina vs.  Antagonistic and adverse interest against the estate is a ground for removal of the
CA administrator.
 The interest of an administrator should not be for a personal one but for the interest
of the beneficiaries of the estate and to help in the settlement of the estate
In Re:  Although there is an order of preference in the appointment of administrator provided
Suntay vs. in Sec. 6, Rule 78, the order is not absolute. The court may still consider the facts
Suntay and circumstances of a case in order to appoint an administrator. One important
(Order of factor is to consider the interest of the appointee over the estate.
Preference)  The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co-administrators over
 the estate in considering the justice and equity that the case demands.
Ocampo vs.  Posting of bond before an administrator can enter upon his duties and obligation is
Ocampo an assurance that if the administrator does not perform his duties and obligations
(special causing damage upon the estate or upon the interest of any interested party in the
administrato settlement of estate there is a bond that would pay for such.
rs)  The probate court may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds
other than those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, such that the need to first
pass upon and resolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the application of the
order of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78, as would be proper in the case of a
regular administrator, do not obtain.
Heirs of  G.R.: There must be application for the court approval of the act of sale, mortgage,
Pedro and/or other encumbrances. It is settled that court approval is necessary for the
Escanlar vs. validity of any disposition of the decedent's estate.
CA  The need for approval by the probate court exists only where specific
(sale, properties of the estate are sold and not when only ideal and indivisible shares of
mortgage,…) an heir are disposed of.
Opulencia  As an exception to the general rule, an heir may sell, dispose, or encumber his
vs. CA hereditary portion or the aliquot portion over the estate.
o Hereditary rights are vested in the heir or heirs from the moment of the
decedent’s death. The heir became the owner of her hereditary share the
moment her father died. Lack of judicial approval does not invalidate the
contract to Sell because the petitioner has the substantive right to sell the
whole or a part of her share in the estate of her late father. The party entered
into the contract to sell in her capacity as an heiress, not as an executrix or
administratrix of the estate.
 But, always remember that --- with respect to SPECIFIC properties, I is necessary
that there must be court approval of the same. This
 This is also applicable to project partition that was made by the heirs prior to the
distribution of the estate which the same likewise requires court approval to be valid.
o The court approval for that oral partition/project partition can come in by way
of confirmation.
Rioferio vs. G.R.: If there is already an appointed executor or administrator, the heirs cannot sue for
CA recovery of property of the estate.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. If the executor or administrator is unwilling to bring suit;
2. When the executor or administrator is alleged to have participated in the act
complained of;
3. If there is no appointed administrator or executor yet despite commencement of the
estate settlement case; or
o Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, the heirs
may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is
in pursuant to Article 777, NCC wherein the rights to succession are
transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
4. If part of the estate to be recovered is assigned by the court to the heir.
Pastor Jr. vs. As a general rule, Estate Courts being courts of limited jurisdiction cannot issue writs
CA of execution. Probate court cannot issue a writ of execution because the orders of
the estate court would refer to the adjudication of administration.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. To satisfy the distributive shares of devises, legatees, and heirs in possession of the
decedent’s assets;
2. To enforce payment of the expenses in the partition; and
3. To satisfy the cost when a person is cited for examination in probate proceedings.
 Sec. 6, Rule 88 authorizes execution to enforce payment of debts of estate. A legacy is not
a debt of the estate; indeed, legatees are among those against whom execution is
authorized to be issued.
Ralla vs.  Where a partition had not only been approved and thus become a judgment of the
Judge court, but distribution of the estate in pursuance of such partition had fully been
Untalan carried out, and the heirs had received the property assigned to them, they are
precluded from subsequently attacking its validity or any part of it
Vda. de  The only instance where a party interested in a probate proceeding may have a final
Alberto vs. liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason of circumstances beyond his
CA control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to negligence. Even
then, the better practice to secure relief is reopening of the same case by proper
motion within the reglementary period, instead of an independent action.
RCBC vs. Hi-  Escheat proceedings refer to the judicial process in which the state, by virtue of its
Tri sovereignty, steps in and claims abandoned, left vacant, or unclaimed property,
Development without there being an interested person having a legal claim thereto.
Corporation  Escheat proceedings are actions in rem, whereby an action is brought against the
& Bakunawa thing itself instead of the person. Thus, an action may be instituted and carried to
judgment without personal service upon the depositors or other claimants.
Jurisdiction is secured by the power of the court over the res. ]Consequently, a
judgment of escheat is conclusive upon persons notified by advertisement, as
publication is considered a general and constructive notice to all persons interested.
 State may inquire into the status, custody, and ownership of the unclaimed balance
to determine whether the inactivity was brought about by the fact of death or
absence of or abandonment by the depositor
 It is a proceeding whereby the state compels the surrender to it of unclaimed deposit
balances when there is substantial ground for a belief that they have been
abandoned, forgotten, or without an owner.
Republic vs.  Escheat is a proceeding, unlike that of succession or assignment, whereby the state,
Solano by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claims the real or personal property of a
person who dies intestate leaving no heir. Since escheat is one of the incidents of
sovereignty, the state may, and usually does, prescribe the conditions and limits the
time within which a claim to such property may be made.
 Conclusive against all persons with actual or constructive notice, but not against
those who are not parties or privies thereto. Absolute lack on the part of petitioners
of any dishonest intent to deprive the appellee of any right, or in any way injure him,
constitutes due process of law, proper notice having been observed.
ESCHEATME Unclaimed balances – all forms of credit which are inactive for the past 10 years from last activity
NT OF Statement to be submitted by the bank contains:
DORMANT 1. Name and last known address of the person whose account became dormant;
BANK 2. Outstanding unclaimed balance;
3. Date when depositor died or date of last activity;
ACCOUNTS :
4. Interest due on the unclaimed deposit.
PD No. 679
(April 2,  Statement must be sworn
1975)  Copy of statement must be posted in conspicuous area of the bank for 60 days from date of
filing with the Treasurer of the Philippines
 Treasurer of the Philippines must inform the OSG
 OSG shall commence the escheat of the dormant account with the RTC of the place where
the dormant account is deposited
 The bank shall be made a party to the case
 If known, all creditors and other persons having an interest can be joined as parties
 Follow rules on service of summons plus summons by publication