SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY.

CARINGAL 3D 2020

CASE NAME
COPY THE FORMAT
FACTS: DEADLINE: 12NN TOMORROW
1. Blah
2. Blah CTRL+F YOUR CASE TITLE, IT’S ALREADY DISTRIBUTED.
a. Sub Blah
3. RTC ruled MENDOZA V TEH - CABOCHAN
4. CA ruled PORTUGAL V PORTUGAL-BELTRAN - SY
REYES ESPIRIDION V ENRIQUEZ - REMOLLO, P.
ISSUES: HILADO V CA - DONES
1. WoN Blah is blah? YES/NO SHEKER V ESTATE OF SHEKER - ONGSIAKO
VDA DE MANALO V CA - CANDELARIA
RULING + RATIO: NATCHER V CA - UY
1. Blah
a. Sub Blah THANK YOU!
2. Concept
a. Explain explain

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION? REVERSED?

DOCTRINE: etc etc etc

1
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020
MENDOZA V TEH
FACTS:
1. 28 Oct. 1994: Petitioner for herself and as administratrix of the intestate
estate of her deceased husband Norberto Mendoza filed before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas a complaint for reconveyance of title
(involving parcels of lot in Batangas).
a. 2. That Adelia C. Mendoza likewise represents her co-plaintiff, the
Intestate Estate of the late Norberto B. Mendoza in her capacity as
the surviving wife of the deceased Norberto B. Mendoza who died
on December 29, 1993;
b. 3. That Adelia C. Mendoza should be appointed by this Honorable
Court as the judicial administratrix of her co-plaintiff for purposes of
this case
2. 21 Jan. 1995: Respondents file Answer with Motion to Dismiss (alleging that
the complaint has no cause of action).
3. 17 Feb 1995: Respondents filed another pleading entitled motion to dismiss
invoking, this time, lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, estoppel,
laches and prescription. In support of their argument of lack of jurisdiction,
private respondents contend that a special proceedings case for
appointment of administratrix of an estate cannot be incorporated in the
ordinary action for reconveyance.
a. In her opposition to the motions, petitioner asserts among others,
that the allegation seeking appointment as administratrix is only an
incidental matter which is not even prayed for in the complaint.
4. RTC of Batangas thru respondent Judge Teh dismissed without prejudice
the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the rules governing
an ordinary civil action and a special proceeding are different.
ISSUES:
1. WON in an action for reconveyance, an allegation seeking appointment
as administratrix of an estate, would oust the RTC of its jurisdiction
over the whole case? NO.
RULING + RATIO:
1. An action for reconveyance, which involves title title to property worth
millions of pesos, such as the lots subject of this case, is cognizable by the
RTC. Likewise falling within its jurisdiction are actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation, such as the appointment of an administratrix for an estate. 1 Even
1 First, Section 19 of B.P. 129 as amended by RA 7691 provides:
Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
the Rules on venue of estate proceedings (Section 1 of Rule 73) impliedly
recognizes the jurisdiction of the RTC over petitions for granting of letters of
administration. On the other hand, probate proceedings for the settlement of
estate are within the ambit of either the RTC or MTC depending on the net
worth of the estate. By arguing that the allegation seeking such appointment
as administratrix ousted the RTC of its jurisdiction, both public and private
respondents confuses jurisdiction with venue.
a. Section 2 of Rule 4 as revised by Circular 13-95 provides that
actions involving title to property shall be tried in the province where
the property is located, in this case, - Batangas. The mere fact that
petitioners deceased husband resides in Quezon City at the time of
his death affects only the venue but not the jurisdiction of the Court.
b. In the present suit, no settlement of estate is involved, but merely
an allegation seeking appointment as estate administratrix which
does not necessarily involve settlement of estate that would have
invited the exercise of the limited jurisdiction of a probate court. The
above allegation is not even a jurisdictional fact which must be
stated in an action for reconveyance. The Court therefore, should
have at least, proceeded with the reconveyance suit rather than
dismiss the entire case.
c. Jurisprudential rulings that a probate court cannot generally decide
questions of ownership or title to property is not applicable in this
case, because: there is no settlement of estate involved and the
RTC of Batangas was not acting as a probate court. It should be
clarified that whether a particular matter should be resolved by the
RTC in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or its limited probate
jurisdiction, is not a jurisdictional issue but a mere question of
procedure.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Resolutions dated June 14, 1995 and November
14, 1995 of the RTC of Batangas are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The trial court is
ordered to immediately proceed with the disposition of the case in accordance with
this Decision.
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein, where the assessed value of property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00)...
xxx xxx xxx
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate ....
Likewise, Section 33 of the same law provides that:
Metropolitan Trial Court shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and
intestate….
2
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020

DOCTRINE: In the present suit, no settlement of estate is involved, but merely an

allegation seeking appointment as estate administratrix which does not necessarily
involve settlement of estate that would have invited the exercise of the limited
jurisdiction of a probate court. The above allegation is not even a jurisdictional fact
which must be stated in an action for reconveyance. The Court therefore, should have
at least, proceeded with the reconveyance suit rather than dismiss the entire case.

3
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020
ISABEL PORTUGAL V ALELI PORTUGAL-BELTRAN
FACTS:
5. Jose Portugal and Paz Lazo got married on November 25, 1942. Six years
later or on May 1948, Portugal married Isabel de la Puerta. Isabel later gave
birth to a boy whom she named Jose Douglas Portugal Jr. Paz also later
gave birth to a girl named Leonila Perpetua Aleli Portugal.
6. Portugal and his 4 siblings executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and
Waiver of Rights over the estate of their father, Mariano, who died intestate.
In the deed, the siblings waived their rights, interests and participation over a
parcel of land in Caloocan in Portugal’s favor. Subsequently, the Registry of
Deeds for Caloocan City issued a TCT covering the parcel of land in the
name of Jose Portugal married to Paz Lazo.
7. Paz died followed by Portugal.
8. Aleli executed an Affidavit of Adjudication of Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased
Person adjudicating to herself the Caloocan property. The TCT in her
parents name was therefore cancelled and a new one was issued under her
name.
9. Upon learning of Portugal’s death, Isabel filed a complaint against Aleli for
the annulment of the Affidavit of Adjudication executed by her and the TCT
under her name.
10. RTC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action on the ground that
Isabel’s status and right as heir had not been established and lack of
jurisdiction over the case.
a. Citing the case of Heirs of Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay v. Del
Rosario: ....the establishment of a status, a right or a particular fact
is remedied through a special proceeding not an ordinary civil
action whereby a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right or the protection or redress of a wrong. [...] The
court, not being a probate court is without jurisdiction to rule on
plaintiffs cause to establish their status and right herein.
11. CA affirmed the RTC without resolving the issues defined in the pre-trial
(won marriages were valid, who is the legal heir, etc.)
ISSUES:
2. Whether petitioners have to institute a special proceeding to determine their
status as heirs before they can pursue the case for annulment of
respondents Affidavit of Adjudication and of the TCT issued in her name?
NO.
RULING + RATIO:
3. In the case of Yaptinchay, the alleged legal heirs of Yaptinchay have not
shown any proof except their bare allegations that they have been declared
the legal heirs of the deceased couple, so this determination of who the legal
heirs are must be made in the proper special proceeding.
4. In the case of Litam v Rivera, the declaration of heirship can be made only
in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners are seeking the
establishment of a status or right.
5. In Solivio, the court held that it should not interfere with estate proceedings
pending in a co-equal court.
6. In the case of Guilas, the better practice for a heir who has not received his
share is to demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate
or administration proceedings, or for re-opening of the probate or
administrative proceedings if it had already been closed, and not through an
independent action, which would be tried by another court or Judge which
may thus reverse a decision or order of the probate or] intestate court
already final and executed and re-shuffle properties long ago distributed and
disposed of.
7. The 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 is that if the special proceedings are pending
or if there are no special proceedings filed but there is, under the
circumstances of the case, a need to file one, then the determination of,
among other issues, heirship should be raised and settled in said special
proceedings. Where special proceedings had been instituted but had been
finally closed and terminated, however, or if a putative heir has lost the right
to have himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and he can no
longer ask for its re-opening, then 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 or properties belonging to the estate
of the deceased.
8. It appearing, however, that in the present case the only property of the
intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it,
under the circumstances of the case, to a special proceeding which could be
long just to establish the status of petitioners as heirs is not only impractical;
it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and expenses of an
administration proceeding.
a. And it is superflous in light of the fact that the parties to the civil
case could and had already in fact presented evidence before the
trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case upon the issues
it defined during pre-trial.
9. In fine, there being no compelling reason to still subject Portugal’s estate to
administration proceedings since a determination of petitioners status as
4
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020

heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners, the trial court
should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the
trial and render a decision thereon upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.

DISPOSITION: Petition is hereby GRANTED. Decision of the CA is hereby SET

ASIDE. Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the trial court for it to evaluate
the evidence presented by the parties and render a decision on the issues defined
during pre-trial.

DOCTRINE: Special Proceedings to determine the status as heirs need not be first
instituted if the same can be determined in the civil case filed as such would only be
burdensome on the estate of the decedent.

5
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020
REYES ESPIRIDION V ENRIQUEZ
FACTS:
The subject matter of the present case is a parcel of land known as Lot No. 1851 Flr-
133 with an aggregate area of 2,017 square meters located in Talisay, Cebu.
Petitioners are the lawful heirs of Dionisia Reyes who co-owned the subject parcel of
land with Anacleto Cabrera as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
RT-3551 (T-8070). They executed an Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of the Estate
of Dionisia Reyes (the Extra Judicial Settlement) involving a portion of the subject
parcel of land. The petitioners and the known heirs of Anacleto Cabrera executed a
Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of Sale (the Segregation and
Confirmation) over the same property.
Respondents Peter B. Enriquez for himself and on behalf of his minor daughter
Deborah Ann C. Enriquez (Deborah Ann) alleges that their predecessor-in-interest
Anacleto Cabrera and his wife Patricia Seguera Cabrera (Spouses Cabrera). owned
pro-indiviso share in the subject parcel of land. Spouses Cabrera were survived by
two daughters Graciana, who died single and without issue, and Etta, the wife of
respondent Peter and mother of respondent Deborah Ann who succeeded their
parents rights and took possession of the 1051 sq. m. of the subject parcel of land.
During her lifetime, Graciana sold her share over the land to Etta. Thus, making the
latter the sole owner of the one-half share of the subject parcel of land. Subsequently,
Etta died and the property passed on to petitioners Peter and Deborah Ann by virtue
of an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate. On June 19, 1999, petitioners Peter and
Deborah Ann sold 200 sq. m. out of the 1051 sq. m. for P200,000.00 to Spouses
Dionisio and Catalina Fernandez (Spouses Fernandez), also their co-respondents in
the case at bar. After the sale, Spouses Fernandez took possession of the said area
in the subject parcel of land.
When Spouses Fernandez, tried to register their share in the subject land, they
discovered that certain documents prevent them from doing so:
(1) Affidavit by Anacleto Cabrera dated March 16, 1957 stating that his share in Lot
No. 1851, the subject property, is approximately 369 sq. m.;
(2) Affidavit by Dionisia Reyes dated July 13, 1929 stating that Anacleto only owned
of Lot No. 1851, while 302.55 sq. m. belongs to Dionisia and the rest of the property
is co-owned by Nicolasa Bacalso, Juan Reyes, Florentino Reyes and Maximiano
Dico;
(3) Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale of the Estate of Dionisia Reyes dated April 17,
1996;
(4) certificates of title in the name of the herein petitioners; and
(5) Deed of Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of Sale dated March 21,
1997 executed by the alleged heirs of Dionisia Reyes and Anacleto Cabrera. Alleging
that the foregoing documents are fraudulent and fictitious, the respondents filed a
complaint for annulment or nullification of the aforementioned documents and for
damages. They likewise prayed for the repartition and resubdivision of the subject
property.
RTC dismissed the case on the ground that the respondents-plaintiffs were actually
seeking first and foremost to be declared heirs of Anacleto Cabrera since they can
not demand the partition of the real property without first being declared as legal heirs
and such may not be done in an ordinary civil action, as in this case, but through a
special proceeding specifically instituted for the purpose.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC.
ISSUES:
W/N Respondents have to institute a special proceeding to determine their status as
heirs of Anacleto Cabrera before they can file an ordinary civil action to nullify the
documents mentioned above (1-5)? - YES
RULING + RATIO:
An ordinary civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A special proceeding, on
the other hand, is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a
particular fact. The Rules of Court provide that only a real party in interest is allowed
to prosecute and defend an action in court. A real party in interest is the one who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the one entitled to the
avails thereof. Such interest, to be considered a real interest, must be one which is
present and substantial, as distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future,
contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. A plaintiff is a real party in interest
when he is the one who has a legal right to enforce or protect, while a defendant is a
real party in interest when he is the one who has a correlative legal obligation to
redress a wrong done to the plaintiff by reason of the defendant’s act or omission
which had violated the legal right of the former. The purpose of the rule is to protect
persons against undue and unnecessary litigation. It likewise ensures that the court
will have the benefit of having before it the real adverse parties in the consideration of
6
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020

a case. Thus, a plaintiff’s right to institute an ordinary civil action should be based on DOCTRINE:
his own right to the relief sought. An ordinary civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A special proceeding, on
In cases wherein alleged heirs of a decedent in whose name a property was
registered sue to recover the said property through the institution of an ordinary civil the other hand, is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a
particular fact.
action, such as a complaint for reconveyance and partition, or nullification of transfer
certificate of titles and other deeds or documents related thereto, the SC has The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in
consistently ruled that a declaration of heirship is improper in an ordinary civil action the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance
since the matter is "within the exclusive competence of the court in a special
of property.
proceeding."
In the instant case, while the complaint was denominated as an action for the
"Declaration of Non-Existency, Nullity of Deeds, and Cancellation of Certificates of
Title, etc.," a review of the allegations therein reveals that the right being asserted by
the respondents are their right as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera who they claim co-owned
one-half of the subject property and not merely one-fourth as stated in the documents
the respondents sought to annul.
The respondents herein, except for their allegations, have yet to substantiate their
claim as the legal heirs of Anacleto Cabrera who are, thus, entitled to the subject
property. Neither is there anything in the records of this case which would show that a
special proceeding to have themselves declared as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera had
been instituted. As such, the trial court correctly dismissed the case for there is a lack
of cause of action when a case is instituted by parties who are not real parties in
interest. While a declaration of heirship was not prayed for in the complaint, it is clear
from the allegations therein that the right the respondents sought to protect or enforce
is that of an heir of one of the registered co-owners of the property prior to the
issuance of the new transfer certificates of title that they seek to cancel. Thus, there is
a need to establish their status as such heirs in the proper forum.
Furthermore, it would be superfluous to still subject the estate to administration
proceedings since a determination of the parties' status as heirs could be achieved in
the ordinary civil case filed because it appeared from the records of the case that the
only property left by the decedent was the subject matter of the case and that the
parties have already presented evidence to establish their right as heirs of the
decedent. In the present case, however, nothing in the records of this case shows
that the only property left by the deceased Anacleto Cabrera is the subject lot, and
neither had respondents Peter and Deborah Ann presented any evidence to establish
their rights as heirs, considering especially that it appears that there are other heirs of
Anacleto Cabrera who are not parties in this case that had signed one of the
questioned documents.

DISPOSITION:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals
is hereby REVERSED and the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated June 29,
2000 DISMISSING the complaint is REINSTATED.

7
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020
HILADO V CA - DONES
FACTS:
12. Roberto S. Benedicto died intestate
a. He was survived by his wife, Julita Campos Benedicto
(administratrix Benedicto), and his only daughter.
13. At the time of his death, there were two pending cases against Benedicto
involving the petitioners in the Bacolod RTC.
14. Administratrix Benedicto filed with the Manila RTC a petition for the issuance
of letters of administration in her favor, where she acknowledged the value
of the assets of the decedent to be P5 Million, net of liabilities
a. The Manila RTC appointed her as administrator of the estate of the
deceased, and issued letters of administration in her favor.
b. As administratrix, she submitted an Inventory of the Estate, Lists of
Personal and Real Properties, and Liabilities of the Estate of her
deceased husband.
i. In the list of Liabilities, Administratrix Benedicto included
the two pending cases; she stated the amounts of liability
to the two cases as P136K and P36K, respectively.
15. Petitioners filed with the Manila RTC a Manifestation/Motion Ex Abundanti
Cautela, praying that they be furnished with copies of all processes and
orders pertaining to the intestate proceedings.
a. Administratrix Benedicto opposed the manifestation, disputing the
personality of petitioners to intervene in the intestate proceedings of
her husband.
b. Petitioners filed an omnibus motion praying that the Manila RTC set
a deadline for the submission by Administratrix Benedicto of the
required inventory of the decedent’s estate. Petitioners also
alleged, through other pleadings or motions, that there were lapses
on the part of Administratrix Benedicto in her administration of the
estate, and assailing the inventory that had been submitted as
unverified, incomplete and inaccurate.
16. The Manila RTC denied the manifestation and motion on the ground that
petitioners are not interested parties, within the contemplation of Rule 19 of
the Rules of Court; that they cannot intervene in the intestate proceedings.
17. In a petition for certiorari of the RTC Decision, the petitioners argued that
they had the right to intervene in the intestate proceedings since the
decedent was the defendant in the two pending cases in the Bacolod RTC.
18. The CA upheld the Decision of the Manila RTC, holding that the claims of
petitioners against the decedent were in fact contingent or expectant, as
there were still pending litigation in separate proceedings before other
courts.
19. Hence the present petition to the SC where the petitioners argue that they
have the right to intervene in the intestate proceedings of the decedent
considering that the deceased is the defendant in the two pending cases.
ISSUES:
3. WoN the petitioners have the right to intervene in the intestate proceedings?
NO, intervention cannot be used if the claim is contingent or expectant (i.e.
depends on the outcome of the pending cases)
RULING + RATIO:
10. While the language of Section 1, Rule 19 does not literally preclude
petitioners from intervening in the intestate proceedings, case law has
consistently held that the legal interest required of an intervenor “must be
actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent and
expectant.”
a. Settlement of estates of deceased persons fall within the rules of
special proceedings, not the Rules on Civil Procedure. Section 2,
Rule 27 provides that “in the absence of special provisions, the
rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable,
applicable to special proceedings.”
b. Notwithstanding Section 2, Rule 72, intervention as set forth under
Rule 19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent whose credit is
based on a contingent claim. The definition of “intervention” under
Rule 19 simply does not accommodate contingent claims,
contingent claims such as cases as yet pending.
c. Petitioners cannot used “intervention” under Rule 19, Rules of Civil
Procedure since their claims are still contingent as the cases are
still pending with the Bacolod RTC. However, they are not totally
precluded from participating in the intestate proceedings.
11. While there is no general right to intervene on the part of the petitioners, they
may be allowed to seek certain prayers or reliefs from the intestate court not
explicitly provided for under the Rules, if the prayer or relief sought is
necessary to protect their interest in the estate, and there is no other
modality under the Rules by which such interests can be protected.
12. [Not so important for purposes of Rule 72] The Court allowed them relief in
the form of access to the records of the case. The court, however, denied
their request to be furnished of all processes and orders in relation to the
intestate proceedings, as well as the other requests they made in their
omnibus motion.
DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED, subject to the qualification the petitioners, as
persons interested in the intestate estate of Roberto Benedicto, are entitled to such
8
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020

notices and rights as provided for such interested persons in the Rules on Settlement
of Estates of Deceased Persons under the Rules on Special Proceedings.

DOCTRINE: Generally, pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 72, the Rule of Civil Procedure for
ordinary action are, as far as practicable, applicable to special proceedings, in the
absence of special provisions. However, persons with contingent and expectant
claims against the estate do not have the right to intervene (intervention as
contemplated under Rule 19, Rules on Civil Procedure) in special proceedings since
intervention cannot be based on contingent and expectant claims. These persons,
however, are not absolutely barred from pursuing their claims against the estate; it’s
just that intervention cannot be used for this purpose due to the contingent nature of
their claims.

9
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020
SHEKER V ESTATE OF SHEKER
FACTS:
1. RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice O. Sheker and issued
an order for all the creditors to file their respective claims against the estate.
2. In compliance therewith, Alan Sheker filed on October 7, 2002 a contingent
claim for agent's commission due him amounting to approximately
P206,250.00 in the event of the sale of certain parcels of land belonging to
the estate, and the amount of P275,000.00, as reimbursement for expenses
incurred and/or to be incurred by petitioner in the course of negotiating the
sale of said realties.
3. The executrix of the Estate of Alice O. Sheker, Victorina Medina, moved for
the dismissal of said money claim against the estate on the grounds that:
a. The requisite docket fee, as prescribed in Section 7(a), Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court, had not been paid;
b. Petitioner failed to attach a certification against non-forum
shopping; and
c. Petitioner failed to attach a written explanation why the money
claim was not filed and served personally.
4. RTC assailed Order and dismissed the money claim without prejudice based
on the grounds above stated by Medina.
5. Shekker then filed for a Petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Must Shekker’s contingent money claim against the estate be dismissed for
his failure to attach to his motion a certification against non-forum shopping?
(RELEVANT ISSUE)
RULING + RATIO: No. The filing of a money claim against the decedent’s estate in
the probate court is mandatory.
1. Special provisions under Part II of the Rules of Court govern special
proceedings; but in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for
in Part I of the Rules governing ordinary civil actions shall be applicable to
special proceedings, as far as practicable.
2. The word "practicable" is defined as: possible to practice or perform;
capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished.
a. This means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in
ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as much as
possible and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said
proceedings. Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it categorically
say that rules in ordinary actions are inapplicable or merely
suppletory to special proceedings.
3. Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-forum
shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written explanation for
non-personal service and filing, and the payment of filing fees for money
claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate proceedings,
thus, they are applicable to special proceedings such as the settlement of
the estate of a deceased person as in the present case.
On the issue of certification of non-forum shopping:
1. The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints
and other initiatory pleadings.
2. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent money claim against the estate of
a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the present case, the whole probate
proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for allowance of
the decedent's will.
3. Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, after granting letters
of testamentary or of administration, all persons having money claims
against the decedent are mandated to file or notify the court and the estate
administrator of their respective money claims; otherwise, they would be
barred, subject to certain exceptions.
4. Such being the case, a money claim against an estate is more akin to a
motion for creditors' claims to be recognized and taken into consideration in
the proper disposition of the properties of the estate.
5. A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main action for the
settlement of the decedent's estate; more so if the claim is contingent since
the claimant cannot even institute a separate action for a mere contingent
claim.
6. Hence, herein petitioner's contingent money claim, not being an
initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against non-forum
shopping.
On the issue of filing fees:
1. The trial court has jurisdiction to act on a money claim against an estate for
services rendered by a lawyer to the administratrix to assist her in fulfilling
her duties to the estate even without payment of separate docket fees
because the filing fees shall constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to
Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, or the trial court may order the
payment of such filing fees within a reasonable time.
a. After all, the trial court had already assumed jurisdiction over the
action for settlement of the estate.
2. Clearly, therefore, non-payment of filing fees for a money claim against the
estate is not one of the grounds for dismissing a money claim against the
estate.
On the issue of personal service and filing:
1. Personal service and filing are preferred for obvious reasons.
a. Plainly, such should expedite action or resolution on a pleading,
motion or other paper; and conversely, minimize, if not eliminate,
10
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020

delays likely to be incurred if service or filing is done by mail,

considering the inefficiency of the postal service.
2. Under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, personal
service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service
and filing, the exception.
3. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in the light of
the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is
mandatory.
4. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other
modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as
to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with.
a. In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise
consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the
issues involved therein.
5. In the present case, petitioner holds office in Salcedo Village, Makati City,
while counsel for respondent and the RTC which rendered the assailed
orders are both in Iligan City.
6. The lower court should have taken judicial notice of the great distance
between said cities and realized that it is indeed not practicable to serve and
file the money claim personally.
7. The ruling spirit of the probate law is the speedy settlement of estates of
deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to residue by
way of inheritance or legacy after the debts and expenses of administration
have been paid.
8. The RTC should have relaxed and liberally construed the procedural rule on
the requirement of a written explanation for non-personal service, again in
the interest of substantial justice.

11
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020
VDA DE MANALO V CA
FACTS:
1. 1992: Troadio Manalo died intestate survived by his wife, Pilar S. Manalo,
and his 11 children. He left several real properties located in Manila and
Tarlac including a business with offices in Metro Manila.
2. Respondents, who are 8 of the surviving children of Troadio filed a petition
with the RTC of Manila for the judicial settlement of the estate of their
late father and for the appointment of their brother, Romeo Manalo, as
administrator.
3. On the date set for the hearing, the TC declared a general default in rem.
Petitioners opposed and subsequently filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to
(1) set aside the denial of their motion for extension to file opposition, (2) set
for preliminary hearing their affirmative defences, (3) declare that the TC did
not acquire jurisdiction over their persons and (4) inhibition of the presiding
judge.
4. TC: denied petitioners, declared that the court had jurisdiction over the
persons of the oppositors, and declared Romeo Manalo as administrator of
the intestate estate of Troadio.
5. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the RoC with CA
after their MR was denied. Petitioners contend that: (1) the venue was
improperly laid; (2) the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over their
persons; (3) the share of the surviving spouse was included in the intestate
proceedings; (4) there was absence of earnest efforts toward compromise
among members of the same family; and (5) no certification of non-forum
shopping was attached to the petition. DENIED. MR DENIED.
6. Hence the current petition for review on certiorari. The PETITIONERS claim
that the action is an ordinary civil action involving members of the same
family, and that it is adversarial in nature. The same should be dismissed
under Rule 16 (1)(j) of the RoC which provides that a motion to dismiss a
complaint may be filed on the ground that a condition precedent for filing the
claim has not been complied with, mainly that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made involving members of the same family prior to
the filing of the petition pursuant to Article 222 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. Petitioners contend that the term proceeding is so broad that it
must necessarily include special proceedings.
ISSUE: W/N respondent CA and TC are correct in denying the motion to dismiss the
petition for judicial settlement of the estate despite the failure of petitioners to aver the
earnest efforts toward a compromise involving members of the same family have
been made prior to the filing of the petition but the same failed. YES.
RULING:
1. In the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averments
and the character of the relief sought shall be controlling
2. The petition contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for
the settlement of estate of a deceased person. The fact of death of the
decedent and of his residence within the country are foundation facts upon
which all the subsequent proceedings in the administration of the estate rest.
In addition, the reliefs prayed for lead to the conclusion that the intention of
respondents is to seek judicial settlement of the estate of their deceased
father. However, the petition of respondents also contain averments typical
of an ordinary civil action. Petitioners took advantage of the defect and filed
their opposition.
3. Petitioners may not be allowed to defeat the purpose of the essentially valid
petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Troadio by raising matters
that are irrelevant and immaterial to the said petition. It must be emphasized
that the trial court, sitting, as a probate court, has limited and special
jurisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues
which may be properly threshed out only in an ordinary civil action.
4. Petitioners may not invoke Rule 1, Section 2, of the RoC to justify the
invocation of Article 222 of the Civil Code for its dismissal because Art. 222
is clear:
a. Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same
family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise
have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the limitations in
Article 2035
b. Art. 222 of the CC is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is clear
from the term suit that it refers to an action by one person or persons
against another or others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues
the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the
enforcement of a right, whether at law or in equity. A civil action is thus an
action filed in a court of justice, whereby a party sues another for the
enforcement of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
5. The Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and
Distribution of Estate is a special proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy
whereby the petitioners therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. The respondents merely seek to establish the fact of death of
their father and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of
the said deceased so that they can validly exercise their right to participate
in the settlement and liquidation of the estate of the decedent consistent with
the limited and special jurisdiction of the probate court.
DISPOSITION: The petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners.
12
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020

DOCTRINE: A special proceeding merely seeks to establish a status, a right, or a

particular fact. A petition for the judicial settlement of an estate merely seeks to
establish the fact of death of a person and recognize the heirs, and is a special
proceeding.

13
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020

NATCHER V CA
FACTS:
1. Spouses Graciano del Rosario and Graciana Esguerra were registered
owners of 9,322 sqm land in Manila and covered by TCT 11889. Upon the death
of Graciana, Graciano, and six children, entered into an extrajudicial settlement
of Graciana's estate where Graciano received 8/14 share while each of the six
children received 1/14 share of the said property.
2. Heirs executed and forged an "Agreement of Consolidation Subdivision of
Real Property with Waiver of Rights" where they subdivided among themselves
the land. Graciano donated to his children a portion of his interest in the land.
Subsequently, the land was further subdivided into two: one was sold to a third
person and retained ownership over the second.
3. Graciano married Natcher, and subsequently sold and issued the land to
Natcher. Gracino died leaving Natcher and six children as heirs.
4. Complaint in RTC alleged that upon Graciano's death, petitioner Natcher,
through the employment of fraud, misrepresentation and forgery, acquired the
land by making it appear that Graciano executed a Deed of Sale in her favor,
consequently impairing the legitimes of the respondents.
5. RTC held that deed of sale in favor of Natcher is null and void and cannot be
regarded as donation.
6. CA reversed and set aside ruling that probate court has exclusive jurisdiction on
distribution of estate. Thus, ordinary court went beyond its jurisdiction for trying a
special proceeding for settlement of estate.
7. Petitioner filed appeal under Rule 45. Hence, present petition.
may be heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate
proceedings. Thus, RTC is devoid of authority to resolve such issue. RTC
Manila, Branch 55 was neither a probate court.
4. In Coca vs. Borromeo and Mendoza vs. The, Court ruled that whether a
particular matter should be resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction is not a jurisdictional issue but a mere
question of procedure, "which may be waived." But such waiver is not present in
this case.
5. To determine legal share of a compulsory heir, net estate of the decedent
must be ascertained, by deducting all payable obligations and charges from the
value of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his death; then, all
donations subject to collation would be added to it. Only thereafter can it be
ascertained whether or not a donation had prejudiced the legitimes.
6. Here, trial court failed to observe established rules of procedure governing
the settlement of the estate of Graciano.
DISPOSITION: CA decision is affirmed and instant petition is dismissed for lack of
merit.
DOCTRINE: Distinction between an ordinary action and a special proceeding: An
ordinary action is a formal demand of one's right in a court of justice in the manner
prescribed by the court or by the law while Special proceeding may be defined as an
application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact.
Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are required unless the statute
expressly so provides and the remedy is granted generally upon an application or
motion.

ISSUES:
WoN settlement of estate of a deceased is a special proceeding, thereby beyond the
jurisdiction of ordinary courts. YES

RULING + RATIO:
1. A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right or prevention of wrong. There lies a distinction between an
ordinary action and a special proceeding: An action is a formal demand of one's
right in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law while
Special proceeding may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish
the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings,
no formal pleadings are required unless the statute expressly so provides and
the remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion.
2. Thus, an action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a
civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased
person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the
nature of a special proceeding. Such matters fall within the exclusive province of
the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
3. Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, states that questions as to
advancement made or alleged to have been made by the deceased to any heir

14