☁☁ TREYES v.
LARLAR (2020) → Compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an
ordinary civil action to enforce their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession w/o
the necessity of a prior and separate judicial declaration of their status as such
Petitioner: Nixon Treyes (husband of Rosie, decedent)
Respondents: Larlar siblings (7 siblings of Rosie)
FACTS
● Rosie died → no children, no will
○ Left behind husband (Treyes) + 7 siblings
○ Left behind 14 real estate properties → owned together w/ Treyes as conjugal properties
(subject properties)
● Treyes executed 2 Affidavits of Self-Adjudication (ASAs) → transferred entire estate of
Rosie unto himself, claiming that he was the sole heir of Rosie
● Larlar siblings sent Treyes a letter → requesting for a conference to discuss the settlement of
the estate of Rosie; no reply from Treyes
○ Then they got shocked when they found out that the TCTs (registered as conjugal
properties of Rosie and Treyes) for the subject properties were already cancelled, and
new TCTs have been issued in favor of Treyes (based on ASAs)
● Siblings filed before RTC complaint for annulment of ASAs, cancellation of TCTs,
reconveyance of ownership and possession, partition of estate, damages against
Treyes and the RDs (where properties were located)
○ They alleged that Treyes fraudulently caused the transfer of properties to himself, and
refused to reconvey shares to siblings who are also legal heirs
● Treyes filed MTD for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (madaming grounds, but
this is the most important); denied. He then filed certiorari to CA + TRO/WPI; denied. Hence
this petition.
● Treyes contention before SC: RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
complaint → determination of the status of the legal heirs in a separate special
proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and
possession of property instituted by legal heirs
ISSUE
W/N a prior determination of the status as a legal / compulsory heir in a separate special
proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary civil action seeking for the protection and
enforcement of ownership rights given by the law of succession → NO!!
RULING
[REM discussion]
Ordinary civil action → party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right w/c party
claims he is entitled to
Special proceeding → party merely seeks to have a right established in his/her favor
Civil action for cancellation of a deed/instrument on the basis of intestate succession →
plaintiff seeks the enforcement of his/her right brought about by his/her being an heir by
operation of law
● Party does not need to establish his/her right as an heir because the law itself already
establishes that status
[CIV discussion]
Siblings do not need to establish their right as heirs, they only need to enforce this right →
Article 777 of the CC states that the rights of succession are transmitted from the moment
of the death of the decedent
● The operation of Art. 777 occurs at the very moment of decedent’s death → heir is legally
deemed to have acquired ownership of his/her share at that very moment, and NOT at
the time of declaration of heirs, partition, distribution
● Bonilla v. Barcena: Right of heirs to the property of the deceased vests in them even before
judicial declaration of their being heirs in the testate or intestate proceedings
● Partition cases: Even before property is judicially partitioned, heirs are already deemed
co-owners of the property
Article 1001: Brothers and sisters of decedent who survive w/ widower → entitled to ½ of the
inheritance, SS gets other ½
● Subject to required proof, without any need of prior judicial determination → siblings of
Rosie, by operation of law, are entitled to ½ of the inheritance
[Tying REM and CIV together] The complaint of the siblings does not seek to have their right
established; they seek the enforcement and protection of the right granted to them under
Art. 1001 in relation to Art. 777
[RECAP] Rule laid down in Ypon, Yaptinchay, Portugal, Reyes, Gabatan and other similar
cases – requiring prior determination of heirship in a separate special proceeding as a
prerequisite before one can file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by
virtue of succession – is ABANDONED
CURRENT RULE UNDER THIS CASE:
GR: Compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an ordinary civil action to enforce
their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession w/o the necessity of a prior and
separate judicial declaration of their status as such
EXC: Unless there is a pending special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent’s estate
or the determination of heirship
ABS | (◕‿◕✿) |1