Surname of Digest Author, First Name Initial.

| I2023

Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran
GR 155555, August 16, 2005
J. Carpio Morales

Facts:
● Jose Portugal had contracted two marriages.
○ His first marriage resulted in the birth of Respondent Leonila Portugal-Beltran.
○ His second marriage was with Petitioner Isabel Portugal and resulted in the birth of
Co-Petitioner Jose Portugal Jr.

● When Portugal Sr. died intestate, his daughter by his first wife believed herself to be his sole
heir and executed an Affidavit of Adjudication resulting in a new TCT over a Caloocan Property
to be issued in her name.

● When Petitioners learned of Jose Portugal’s death and the subsequent transfer of title, they
filed this civil complaint against Respondent, claiming that:
○ they are the sole heir of the deceased.
■ Respondent Leonila is not related to the deceased Portugal
■ Furthermore, Respondent Leonila perjured herself when she made false
representations in her Affidavit of Adjudication.

● The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction, holding
that:
○ special proceeding should be filed for the petitioners to be established as heirs
■ This is pursuant to the case of Heirs of Guido and Yaptinchay vs Del Rosario
● “the establishment of a status, a right, or a particular fact is remedied
through a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action
● The operative term in the former is "to establish", while in the latter, it
is "to enforce", a right.
■ Since the RTC is not a probate court, it held that is had no jurisdiction ‘to rule
on plaintiffs’ cause to establish their status and right herein’

● The case was appealed to the CA, where the Petitioners raised the later case of Cariño v.
Cariño wherein the Court stated that:
○ the Court may pass on the validity of marriage 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.
■ Evidence may then be adduced to prove that existence of grounds rendering
such previous marriage an absolute nullity.

1
 Surname of Digest Author, First Name Initial. | I2023

● The CA denied the appeal and found that Cariño is inapplicable. It noted that:
○ The main issue in Cariño was the validity of the two marriages by the deceased
○ In this case between the Portugals, however, the main issue is the annulment of title
to the property.

● Thus, this petition before the SC

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N the RTC can rule on the status of plaintiffs? YES

Jurisprudence invoked
● The Supreme Court discussed the cited cases:
○ In Heirs of Guido:
■ The petitioners therein executed an extrajudicial settlement of estate
of the deceased Guido over two lots but later found that these lots
were titled in the name of Golden Bay Realty who then sold portions of
it.
■ The RTC dismissed:
● The plaintiffs did not show any proof that they were the legal
heirs of Guido and Yaptinchay.
● Instead, they simply alleged that they have been declared the
legal heirs of the deceased couple.
● Hence “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.”
■ The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC.
● It held that 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”

○ Litam case
■ George Tam instituted a special proceeding for issuance of letters of
administration alleging that he is the son of the deceased Rafael
Litam. During the pendency of said special proceeding, George then
filed a civil complaint in the same court against the administrator of
the estate of Rafael Litam, Arminio Rivera and Remedios Espirtu,
raising the same allegations as that made in the special proceedings.

2
 Surname of Digest Author, First Name Initial. | I2023

■ The trial court dismissed the civil casse, finding that the plaintiffs are
not the children of the decedent. It also declared Marcosa to be the
sole heir of the decedent.
■ The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC, finding its ruling to be
substantially correct as there was no evidence presented that
sufficiently proved petitioners’ status as children of the decedent.
● However, it also opined that the trial court should not have
declared Marcosa as the sole heir since such declaration was
improper in a civil proceeding, it being within the exclusive
competence of the court in a special proceeding.

○ Solivio case
■ The trial court declared the decedent’s maternal aunt, Celedonia
Solivio, to be his sole heir. Later on, however, the decedent’s paternal
aunt, Concordia Javellana-Villanueva, moved to reconsider the court’s
order, claiming that she too is an heir.
■ The trial court denied the motion on ground of tardiness.
■ The Supreme Court held that, while the estate proceedings were still
pending, Concordia had nonetheless lost the right to have herself
declared as co-heir in said proceedings.

○ Guilas case (cited in Solivio)

■ During the proceedings for settlement of the testate estate of the
decedent-adoptive mother, a project of partition beween the adopted
daughter, Juanita Guilas, and her adoptive father was approved.
■ Juanita would file a motion in the civil case to set aside the order
setting it on trial as she had already partially acknowledged the validit
■ The Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the approval of the
project of partition and the order to archive the records by the probate
court, the probate proceedings have not been legally terminated as
Juanita’s share had not yet been delivered to her.
■ The Supreme Court continued to state that the better practice is for
the heir, who has not received their share, to demand it via a proper
motion in the same probate or administration proceedings, or to have
the same re-opened, if it was closed, and not through an independent
action.

Summation of rules
● In the cases of Litam, Solivio and Guilas, the Supreme Court found the common
doctrine to be as follows:

3
 Surname of Digest Author, First Name Initial. | I2023

○ The adverse parties must be putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or

parties to the special proceedings for its settlement
○ The issue of heirship must be raised and settled in a special proceedings if
■ There are pending special proceedings, or
■ There are no special proceedings filed but there is a need to file one

○ However, the determination of heirship may be raised in an ordinary civil

action for the annulment of partition, distribution, or adjudication of
properties in the decedent’s estate if:
■ Special proceedings have been instituted but had been finally closed
and terminated, or
■ Special proceedings are pending but the putative heir has lost the
right to have himself declared in the same as co-heir and he can no
longer ask for its re-opening

As applied
● In the case at bar –
○ Respondent Portugal-Beltran believed that she was the sole heir to the
decedent’s estate and therefore executed the questioned Affidavit of
Adjudication
■ This is pursuant to Rule 74, Sec. 1 which is the exception to the general
rule that a deceased’s estate should be judicially administered and the
competent court should appoint a qualified administrator if the
deceased left no will or failed to name an executor in one.
○ On the other hand, Petitioners claim to be the executive heirs of the deceased

● As a rule, a probate or intestate court would have jurisdiction to declare who are the
heirs

● BUT since it appears that the only property in the intestate estate is the Caloocan
property, to subject it to a long special proceeding would only be impractical and
burdensome to the estate.
● A special proceeding would also be superfluous; the parties in the civil case have
already presented evidence before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the
case.

● Thus, there is no compelling reason to still require a separate proceeding since a

determination of petitioners’ status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case already
filed.

4
 Surname of Digest Author, First Name Initial. | I2023

○ The trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented and render
a decision on the issues it defined during pre-trial.

Ruling: Petition is granted.