SpecPro Digest by M.

Dizon
Rule 72 – Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules
Rule 73 – Venue and Process
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran
G.R. No. 155555 | August 16, 2005 | Carpio Morales, J.

Parties:

PETITIONERS RESPONDENT

Isabel Portugal Leonila Portugal-Beltran

Jose Douglas Portugal, Jr.

Doctrine:
If the special proceedings had been instituted and terminated, or if a putative heir lost the right to have
himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and can no longer ask for its re-opening, an ordinary
civil action can be filed for his declaration as heir in order to bring about the annulment of the partition, or
distribution, or adjudication of a property/properties belonging to the estate of the deceased.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CASE SUMMARY
Trigger word/s: heir declaration in ordinary civil action

FACTS: Jose Portugal married Paz Lazo (who gave birth to respondent Leonila), then contracted a second
marriage with petitioner Isabel (who gave birth to co-petitioner Portugal, Jr.). Portugal and his siblings
executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Waiver of Rights over their father’s estate, wherein the siblings
waived their rights over a Caloocan parcel of land in Portugal’s favor. A TCT was issued in the name of “Jose
Portugal married to Paz Lazo.” Paz died, followed by Portugal, who died intestate. Respondent Leonila
adjudicated to herself the Caloocan parcel and had a TCT issued in her name.

Petitioners filed a complaint before the RTC against respondent for the annulment of the Affidavit of
Adjudication and the TCT, alleging that Leonila was not related to Portugal and was not entitled to inherit. In
the RTC, the trial court issued a Pre-Trial Order (PTO) with 4 issues (see Case Trail) and, after the parties
presented evidence, dismissed the case for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction, without resolving
the issues in the PTO. The CA affirmed the RTC’s dismissal of the case.

ISSUE: W/N petitioners have to institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs before
they can pursue the case for annulment of respondent’s Affidavit of Adjudication and of the TCT—
NO.

HELD: While 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, the common doctrine in Litam, Solivio
and Guilas is if the special proceedings had been instituted and terminated, or if a putative heir lost the right
to have himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and can no longer ask for its re-opening, an
ordinary civil action can be filed for his declaration as heir in order to bring about the annulment of the partition,
or distribution, or adjudication of a property/properties belonging to the estate of the deceased.

Further, while a probate or intestate court has jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of a deceased, ITC,
since the only property of the intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to subject it to
special proceedings just to establish the status of petitioners as heirs is impractical and burdensome to the
estate with the costs and expenses of the administrative proceedings. The parties had already presented
evidence before the trial court, which assumed jurisdiction over the case upon issues it defined during pre-
trial.

Under these circumstances, there is no compelling reason to still subject Portugal’s estate to administration
proceedings since a determination of petitioners’ status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case they filed.

1
SpecPro Digest by M. Dizon
Rule 72 – Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules
Rule 73 – Venue and Process
The trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the trial and render
a decision upon the issues it defined during the pre-trial.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
FACTS
• Jose Portugal married Paz Lazo in 1942. In 1948, he contracted a second marriage with petitioner
Isabel. Isabel gave birth to Portugal, Jr. (co-petitioner), while Paz gave birth to Leonila (respondent).
• Portugal and his 4 siblings then executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Waiver of Rights over
the estate of their father, Mariano, who died intestate. Portugal’s siblings waived their rights, interests
and participation over a parcel of land in Caloocan in Portugal’s favor. The Registry of Deeds issued
a TCT covering this land in the name of “Jose Portugal, married to Paz Lao.” Paz died, followed by
Portugal, who died intestate.
• Leonila executed an Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of estate of Deceased Person, adjudicating
to herself the Caloocan parcel of land. The TCT in Portugal’s name was cancelled and another TCT
was issued in the name of Leonila.
• Petitioners filed before the RTC of Caloocan a complaint against Leonila for annulment of the Affidavit
of Adjudication and the TCT in Leonila’s name, alleging that Leonila was not related to Portugal and
was not entitled to inherit. They prayed that a new TCT be issued in their name.
CASE TRAIL
• RTC – issued a Pre-Trial Order the following issues:
1. Which of the two (2) marriages contracted by the deceased Jose Q. Portugal, is valid;
2. Which of the plaintiff, Jose Portugal Jr. and defendant Leonila P. Beltran is the legal heir of
the deceased Jose Q. Portugal (Sr.);
3. Whether or not TCT No. 159813 was issued in due course and can still be contested by
plaintiffs;
4. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their claim under the complaint.

The RTC then dismissed the case for lack of cause of action without resolving these issues on the
ground that petitioners’ status and right as putative heirs had not been established before a probate
court, and lack of jurisdiction over the case, citing Heirs of Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario,
where the Court said that the establishment of a status, right or particular fact is remedied
through a special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action. As the RTC is not a probate court, it
is without jurisdiction to rule on the plaintiff’s cause to establish their status and right.
• CA – Petitioners’ cited Cariño v. Cariño, where the Court said that “for purposes other than
remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity…the court may
pass upon the validity of the marriage even after the death of the parties thereto, and 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.”

The CA found Cariño to be inapplicable, as the main issue in that case was the validity of the two
marriages; ITC, the main issue is the annulment of title to property, and as the status and rights of the
parties have not been definitely established, such questions must be properly ventilated in an
appropriate special proceeding. The CA affirmed the RTC’s dismissal of the case.

• Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the SC, faulting the CA and the RTC for, among
others, failing to render judgment based on the evidence presented relative to the issues raised during
pre-trial.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ISSUES & HELD

2
SpecPro Digest by M. Dizon
Rule 72 – Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules
Rule 73 – Venue and Process
1. W/N petitioners have to institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs before
they can pursue the case for annulment of respondent’s Affidavit of Adjudication and of the TCT—
NO.
● 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.
o Common doctrine in Litam, Solivio and Guilas – in which the adverse parties are putative
heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to the special proceedings for its settlement, if
the special proceedings are pending, or if there are none filed but there is a need to file
one under the circumstances, then the determination of heirship should be raised and
settled in said special proceedings. However, if the special proceedings had been
instituted and terminated, or if a putative heir lost the right to have himself declared in the
special proceedings as co-heir and can no longer ask for its re-opening, an ordinary civil
action can be filed for his declaration as heir in order to bring about the annulment of the
partition, or distribution, or adjudication of a property/properties belonging to the estate of
the deceased.
o ITC, respondent executed the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication, which is an
exception to the general rule that when a person dies leaving a property, it should be
judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator in
the order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or in case he did
but failed to name an executor.
● While a probate or intestate court has jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of a deceased, ITC,
since the only property of the intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to
subject it to special proceedings under the circumstances of the case could be long, just to
establish the status of petitioners as heirs is impractical and burdensome to the estate with the
costs and expenses of the administrative proceedings.
o The parties had already presented evidence before the trial court, which assumed
jurisdiction over the case upon issues it defined during pre-trial.
o Under these circumstances, there is no compelling reason to still subject Portugal’s estate
to administration proceedings since a determination of petitioners’ status as heirs could be
achieved in the civil case they filed.
o The trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during
the trial and render a decision upon the issues it defined during the pre-trial.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
RULING
Petition GRANTED. CA Decision set aside. Records of the case REMANDED to the RTC for evaluation of
the evidence presented by the parties and render a decision on the enumerated issues defined during the
pre-trial.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––