5. Heirs of Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay vs.

Del Rosario
G.R. No. 124320. March 2, 1999.*

HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY AND ISABEL YAPTINCHAY, NAMELY: LETICIA

ENCISO-GADINGAN, EMILIO ENCISO, AURORA ENCISO, AND NORBERTO
ENCISO, REPRESENTED BY LETICIA ENCISO-GADINGAN, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
petitioners, vs. HON. ROY S. DEL RO-SARIO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH
21, IMUS, CAVITE; THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR TRECE MARTIRES CITY,
GEORGE T. CHUA, SPS. ALFONSO NG AND ANNABELLE CHUA, SPS. ROSENDO
L. DY AND DIANA DY, SPS. ALEXANDER NG AND CRISTINA NG, SPS. SAMUEL
MADRID AND BELEN MADRID, SPS. JOSE MADRID AND BERNARDA MADRID,
SPS. DAVID MADRID AND VIOLETA MADRID, JONATHAN NG, SPS. VICTORIANO
CHAN, JR. AND CARMELITA CHAN, SPS. MARIE TES C. LEE AND GREGORIE W.C.
LEE, JACINTO C. NG, JR., SPS. ADELAIDO S. DE GUZMAN AND ROSITA C. DE
GUZMAN, SPS. RICARDO G. ONG AND JULIE LIMIT, SPS. MISAEL ADELAIDA P.
SOLIMAN AND FERDINAND SOLIMAN, SPS. MYLENE T. LIM AND ARTHUR LIM,
EVELYN K. CHUA, GOLDEN BAY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
respondents.

DOCTRINE: The declaration of heirship must be made in an administration proceeding,

and not in an independent civil action. It is decisively clear that the declaration of
heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as it involves the
establishment of a status or right.

FACTS:

Claiming that they are the legal heirs of the late Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay
who were owners of two lots located in Carmona, Cavite, herein petitioners executed an
extra-judicial settlement of the estate of the aforementioned spouses.

On August 26, 1994 petitioners discovered that the subject two lots were already
titled under the name of respondent Golden Bay Realty and Development Corporation
under two TCTs. Due to this, petitioners filed for annulment and/or declaration of nullity
of the said TCTs with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order
with damages before the trial court. Thereafter, petitioners discovered that respondent
already sold portions of the parcels of subject land. Thus, the petitioners filed with the
trial court an amended complaint to implead additional defendants whose TCTs they
also sought to be annulled. The RTC dismissed the amended complaint, but was
eventually granted upon reconsideration.

Private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss mainly on the basis that petitioners
have not established their status as heirs and land being claimed is different from the
lands titled under their names.
 The motion to dismiss was granted. The trial court did not heed to the petitioners’
motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
of the Revised Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.

Petitioners contended that the respondent court acted with grave abuse of
discretion in ruling that the issue of heirship should first be determined before trial of the
case could proceed. It is petitioners’ submission that the respondent court should have
proceeded with the trial and simultaneously resolved the issue of heirship in the same
case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the issue of heirship must be settled in the same civil action filed
by the petitioners – NO

HELD:

The petition is denied.

The SC agreed with the trial court that the claim of the petitioners being the legal
heirs did not present any proof of the said claim. As previously held by the SC, the
determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in the
proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of
property. This must take precedence over the action for reconveyance.

The declaration of heirship must be made in an administration proceeding, and

not in an independent civil action. 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. It is decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a
special proceeding inasmuch as it involves the establishment of a status or right

SECONDARY ISSUE:
The petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari before this Court is an improper recourse.
Their proper remedy should have been an appeal. 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.