Rem SpecPro CaseDigest Rule 72 To 109 1st Batch
Rem SpecPro CaseDigest Rule 72 To 109 1st Batch
Rem SpecPro CaseDigest Rule 72 To 109 1st Batch
In sum, on all counts in the considerations material to On 2 January 2002, the Manila RTC issued an order
the issues posed, the resolution points to the affirmation denying the manifestation/motion, on the ground that
of the assailed CA decision and resolution. Metrobank’s petitioners are not interested parties within the
claim in its fourth-party complaint against Chua’s estate contemplation of the Rules of Court to intervene in the
is based on quasi-contract. It is also a contingent claim intestate proceedings. This ruling was affirmed by the
that depends on another event. Both belong to the CA.
category of claims against a deceased person that
should be filed under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of
ISSUE: WON petitioners have the right intervene in the survive the death of the decedent and may be
intestate proceedings. commenced against the administrator pursuant to
Section 1, Rule 86.
RULING: NO. Section 1 of Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that an intervenor "has a legal Evidently, the merits of petitioners’ claims against
interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of Benedicto are to be settled in the civil cases where they
either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so were raised, and not in the intestate proceedings. In the
situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or event the claims for damages of petitioners are granted,
other disposition of property in the custody of the they would have the right to enforce the judgment
court.” While the language of Section 1, Rule 19 does against the estate. Yet until such time, to what extent
not literally preclude petitioners from intervening in the may they be allowed to participate in the intestate
intestate proceedings, case law has consistently held proceedings?
that the legal interest required of an intervenor "must be
actual and material, direct and immediate, and not Petitioners’ interests in the estate of Benedicto may be
simply contingent and expectant." inchoate interests, but they are viable interests
nonetheless. We are mindful that the Rules of Special
Nonetheless, it is not immediately evident that Proceedings allows not just creditors, but also "any
intervention under the Rules of Civil Procedure person interested" or "persons interested in the estate"
necessarily comes into operation in special proceedings. various specified capacities to protect their respective
The settlement of estates of deceased persons fall within interests in the estate.
the rules of special proceedings under the Rules of
Court, not the Rules on Civil Procedure. Section 2, Rule In the same manner that the Rules on Special
72 further provides that "[i]n the absence of special Proceedings do not provide a creditor or any person
provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions interested in the estate, the right to participate in every
shall be, as far as practicable, applicable to special aspect of the testate or intestate proceedings, but
proceedings." instead provides for specific instances when such
persons may accordingly act in those proceedings, we
We can readily conclude that notwithstanding Section 2 deem that while there is no general right to intervene on
of Rule 72, intervention as set forth under Rule 19 does the part of the petitioners, they may be allowed to seek
not extend to creditors of a decedent whose credit is certain prayers or reliefs from the intestate court not
based on a contingent claim. The definition of explicitly provided for under the Rules, if the prayer or
"intervention" under Rule 19 simply does not relief sought is necessary to protect their interest in the
accommodate contingent claims. estate, and there is no other modality under the Rules
by which such interests can be protected. It is under this
Yet, even if it were declared that petitioners have no standard that we assess the three prayers sought by
right to intervene in accordance with Rule 19, it would petitioners.
not necessarily mean the disallowance of the reliefs they
had sought before the RTC since the right to intervene is The first is that petitioners be furnished with copies of all
not one of those reliefs. processes and orders issued in connection with the
intestate proceedings, as well as the pleadings filed by
Had the claims of petitioners against Benedicto been the administrator of the estate. There is no questioning
based on contract, whether express or implied, then as to the utility of such relief for the petitioners. They
they should have filed their claim, even if contingent, would be duly alerted of the developments in the
under the aegis of the notice to creditors to be issued by intestate proceedings, including the status of the assets
the court immediately after granting letters of of the estate. Also, Section 2 of Rule 135 states that
administration and published by the administrator “the records of every court of justice shall be public
immediately after the issuance of such notice. However, records and shall be available for the inspection of any
it appears that the claims against Benedicto were based interested person.” Allowing creditors, contingent or
on tort, as they arose from his actions in connection with otherwise, access to the records of the intestate
Philsucom, Nasutra and Traders Royal Bank. Civil actions proceedings is an eminently preferable precedent than
for tort or quasi-delict do not fall within the class of mandating the service of court processes and pleadings
claims to be filed under the notice to creditors required upon them.
under Rule 86. These actions, being as they are civil,
As to the other reliefs, Petitioners are not entitled to 2. Whether the Manila Court erred in not dismissing
such. Special Proceeding No. 51396 notwithstanding prior
filing of Special Proceeding No. 6344 in the Negros
All told, the ultimate disposition of the RTC and the Court.
Court of Appeals is correct. Nonetheless, as we have
explained, petitioners should not be deprived of their Held:
prerogatives under the Rules on Special Proceedings as
enunciated in this decision. 1. No. While the jurisdiction of Courts of First
Instance over "all matters of probate" is beyond
3. URIARTE vs. CFI NEGROS, question, the matter of venue, or the particular
G.R. No. L-21938-39, 29 MAY 1970 Court of First Instance where the special
proceeding should be commenced, is regulated
Facts: by Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of
Court, which provides that the estate of a
Don Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain. Vincent
decedent inhabitant of the Philippines at the
Uriarte filed with the CFI of Negros Occidental a petition time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien,
for the settlement of the estate of the late Don Juan shall be in the court of first instance in the
(Special Proceeding No. 6344) alleging that, as a natural province in which he resided at the time of his
son of the latter, he was his sole heir, and that, during death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign
the lifetime of said decedent, Vicente had instituted a country, the court of first instance of any
civil case in the same Court for his compulsory province in which he had estate.
acknowledgment as such natural son. However, said
petition was opposed by the nephews of Juan stating Accordingly, when the estate to be settled is
that there is a valid will left by the deceased in Spain. that of a nonresident alien (like the deceased)
The nephews then filed a settlement of the estate in the the Courts of First Instance in provinces where
the deceased left any property have concurrent
court of Manila, on the basis of the alleged will of the
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proper
deceased, commenced Special Proceeding No. 51396 in
special proceeding for the settlement of his
the CFI of Manila for the probate of a document alleged
estate. In the case before Us, these Courts of
to be the last will of the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite, First Instance are the Negros and the Manila
and on the same date, they filed in Special Proceeding Courts - province and city where the deceased
No. 6344 of the Negros Court a motion to dismiss the left considerable properties. In accordance with
same on the following grounds: (1) that, as the settled jurisprudence in this jurisdiction, testate
deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite had left a last will, there proceedings, for the settlement of the
was no legal basis to proceed with said intestate estate of a deceased person take
proceedings, and (2) that Vicente Uriarte had no legal precedence over intestate proceedings for
personality and interest to initiate said intestate the same purpose.
proceedings, he not being an acknowledged natural son
of the decedent. Thus it has been held repeatedly that, if in
the course of intestate proceedings
Vicente filed an opposition to the settlement of pending before a court of first instance it
estate in the court of Manila stating that the court of is found it that the decedent had left a last
Negros Occidental has already acquired original will, proceedings for the probate of the of
the latter should replace the intestate
jurisdiction over the case. The opposition of Vicente was
proceedings even if at that stage an
dismissed together with the intestate settlement In the
administrator had already been appointed,
CFI of Negros. Hence, Vicente filed a petition for
the latter being required to render final
certiorari questioning the dismissal of the intestate account and turn over the estate in his
settlement in the CFI of Negros. possession to the executor subsequently
appointed. This, however, is understood to
Issues:
be without prejudice that should the
alleged last will be rejected or is
1. Whether or not the Negros Court erred in dismissing
disapproved, the proceeding shall
Special Proceeding No. 6344.
continue as an intestacy. As already
adverted to, this is a clear indication that
proceedings for the probate of a will enjoy that the lands are situated in Pasay City; hence, outside
priority over intestate proceedings. the jurisdiction of the Parañaque court. Since it had no
jurisdiction over the case, it could not have acted on the
2. No. Wrong venue is merely a waiveable motion to admit amended petition.
procedural defect, and, in the light of the
circumstances obtaining in the instant case,
Vicente Uriarte has waived the right to raise ISSUE:
such objection or is precluded from doing so by
laches. Vicente Uriarte knew of the existence of Whether or not trial court motu proprio dismiss a
a will executed by Don Juan since 1961 when complaint on the ground of improper venue.
Higinio Uriarte filed his opposition to the initial
petition filed in Special Proceeding No. 6344. To
allow him now to assail the exercise of HELD:
jurisdiction over the probate of the will by the
Manila Court and the validity of all the Venue of real actions
proceedings had in Special Proceeding No.
51396 would put a premium on his negligence. This question has already been answered in Dacoycoy v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, where this Court held that
it may not. The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s
4. RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS vs. REGISTRY OF complaint by respondent trial court on the ground of
DEEDS, improper venue is plain error, obviously attributable to
G.R. No. 133240, 15 NOVEMBER 2000 its inability to distinguish between jurisdiction and
venue.
Facts: Petitioner Corporation amended its Articles of
Questions or issues relating to venue of actions are
Incorporation to change its name from Rudolf Lietz,
basically governed by Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of
Incorporated to Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. and such was
Court. Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of
approved by SEC. As a consequence of its change of
an action is conferred only by law. It may not be
name, petitioner sought the amendment of the transfer
certificates of title over real properties owned by them, conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which
otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject
all of which were under the old name. For this purpose,
matter of an action. On the other hand, the venue of an
petitioner instituted a petition for amendment of titles
action as fixed by statute may be changed by the
with the RTC Parañaque City.
consent of the parties, and an objection on improper
The petition impleaded as respondent the Registry of venue may be waived by the failure of the defendant to
Deeds of Pasay City, apparently because the titles raise it at the proper time. In such an event, the court
sought to be amended, all state that they were issued may still render a valid judgment. Rules as to
by the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City. Petitioner jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or
likewise inadvertently alleged in the body of the petition agreement of the parties. Venue is procedural, not
that the lands covered by the subject titles are located in jurisdictional, and hence may be waived. It is meant to
Pasay City. Subsequently, petitioner learned that the provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict
subject titles are in the custody of the Register of Deeds their access to the courts as it relates to the place of
of Parañaque City. Hence, petitioner filed an Ex-Parte trial.
Motion to Admit Amended Petition impleading instead as
Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper
respondent the Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City, and
venue is certainly not the appropriate course of action at
alleged that its lands are located in Parañaque City.
this stage of the proceedings. Where the defendant fails
In the meantime, however, the court a quo had to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as
dismissed the petition motu proprio on the ground of provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court,
improper venue, it appearing therein that the and allows the trial to be held and a decision to be
respondent is the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City and rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special action be
the properties are located in Pasay City. Petitioner filed permitted to belatedly challenge the wrong venue, which
with the lower court a Motion for Reconsideration but is deemed waived. Indeed, it was grossly erroneous for
was denied. On the other hand, in view of the dismissal the trial court to have taken a procedural short-cut by
of the petition, the lower court also denied the Ex-Parte dismissing motu proprio the complaint on the ground of
Motion to Admit Amended Petition. improper venue without first allowing the procedure
outlined in the rules of court to take its proper course.
The Solicitor General filed his Comment contending that
the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Amendments as a matter of right
the res because it appeared from the original petition
A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of
right at any time before a responsive pleading is served Petitioners are heirs of Spouses Eliodoro Sandejas, Sr.
or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) and Remedios Sandejas. Prior to the death of Eliodoro,
days after it is served. he was appointed as administrator for the settlement of
the estate of his late wife, Remedios. He bound himself
Amendments to pleadings are liberally allowed in
and his heirs to sell to respondent Lina, for Php1M, four
furtherance of justice, in order that every case may so
far as possible be determined on its real facts, and in parcels of land which formed part of the estate of
order to speed the trial of cases or prevent the circuitry Remedios. Lina gave Php170k earnest money to Eliodoro
of action and unnecessary expense. The trial court, who filed a motion for authority to sell the subject lands.
therefore, should have allowed the amendment Resolution of the motion, however, was delayed due to
proposed by petitioner for in so doing, it would have the burning of records, and preceded by the death of
allowed the actual merits of the case to be speedily Eliodoro. Sixto Sandejas, son of the spouses, was then
determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the
appointed as administrator.
most expeditious and inexpensive manner.
Before the intestate court, Lina filed an Omnibus
The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to
Pleading for motion to intervene and petition-in-
pleadings to avoid multiplicity of suits and in order that
the real controversies between the parties are intervention alleging Eliodoro bound himself and the
presented, their rights determined and the case decided heirs to sell the parcels of land that formed part of the
on the merits without unnecessary delay. This liberality estate of Remedios which the court granted. Lina then
is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit, especially in filed a motion for the approval of the Receipt of Earnest
this case where the amendment to the complaint was Money With Promise to Sell and To Buy which the court
made before the trial of the case thereby giving granted. The intestate court also ordered Administrator
petitioner all the time allowed by law to answer and to
Sixto to execute the necessary deeds for conveyance.
prepare for trial.
CA:
5. HEIRS OF SANDEJAS vs. LINA,
G.R. No. 141634, 5 FEBRUARY 2001 1. The contract between Eliodoro and Lina was
merely a contract to sell. The ownership of the
Probate jurisdiction; effect of court’s approval; four lots was to remain in the intestate estate of
application for approval of sale of property under Remedios until the approval of the sale, which is
administration a positive suspensive condition obtained from
the settlement court.
A contract of sale is not invalidated by the fact that it is 2. Ordered the petitioners to convey Eliodoro’s
subject to probate court approval. The transaction undivided shares of the disputed properties to
remains binding on the seller-heir, but not on the other Lina.
heirs who have not given their consent to it. In settling
the estate of the deceased, a probate court has ISSUES:
jurisdiction over matters incidental and collateral to the
exercise of its recognized powers. Such matters include 1. Did the CA err in ordering the conveyance due
selling, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering realty to the nonfulfillment of the suspensive condition
belonging to the estate. Rule 89, Section 8 of the Rules -- court approval of the sale?
2. Does the intestate court have jurisdiction to
of Court, deals with the conveyance of real property
compel the petitioners to enforce the sale?
contracted by the decedent while still alive. In contrast 3. May Lina, despite not being the administrator,
with Sections 2 and 4 of the same Rule, the said file an application for the approval of the sale in
provision does not limit to the executor or administrator the settlement case?
the right to file the application for authority to sell,
mortgage or otherwise encumber realty under
administration. The standing to pursue such course of Held:
action before the probate court inures to any person
1. No, CA was correct in ordering the conveyance
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment but the contract was a contract of conditional
or to be entitled to the avails of the suit. sale, not a contract to sell. A contract to sell is
subject to the suspensive condition of payment
of the purchase price. Here, the suspensive
Facts:
condition was the procurement of a court Petitioners contend that under Section 8, Rule
approval. 89, only the executor or administrator is
authorized to apply for the approval of a sale of
realty under administration. However, there is
Court approval is required in any disposition of
no such limitation.
the decedent's estate per Rule 89 of the Rules
of Court. However, such approval cannot Sections 2 and 4 of the same Rule specifically
adversely affect the substantive rights of heirs to requires only the executor or administrator to
dispose of their own pro indiviso shares. In file the application for authority to sell, mortgage
other words, they can sell their rights, interests or otherwise encumber real estate for the
or participation in the property under purpose of paying debts, expenses and legacies
administration. A stipulation requiring court (Section 2); or for authority to sell real or
approval does not affect the validity and the personal estate beneficial to the heirs, devisees
effectivity of the sale as regards the selling or legatees and other interested persons,
heirs. It merely implies that the property may be although such authority is not necessary to pay
taken out of custodia legis, but only with the debts, legacies or expenses of administration
court's permission. It would seem that the (Section 4). Section 8 mentions only an
suspensive condition in the present conditional application to authorize the conveyance of realty
sale was imposed only for this reason. under a contract that the deceased entered into
while still alive.
Here, the sale was approved by the intestate
court. Because petitioners did not consent to the While this Rule does not specify who should file
sale of their ideal shares, the receipt of the the application, it stands to reason that the
earnest money is only limited to the share of proper party must be one who is to be benefited
Eliodoro. or injured by the judgment, or one who is to be
entitled to the avails of the suit.
2. Yes, the intestate court has jurisdiction over the
approval of the subject conditional sale.
6. PIO BARRETTO REALTY vs. CA,
Probate jurisdiction covers all matters relating to G.R. No. 132362, 28 JUNE 2001
the settlement of estates (Rules 74 & 86-91)
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI-
and the probate of wills (Rules 75-77) of
AMENDMENT OF FINAL AND EXECUTORY
deceased persons, including the appointment JUDGMENT CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF
and the removal of administrators and executors DISCRETION
(Rules 78-85). It also extends to matters
incidental and collateral to the exercise of a Facts:
probate court's recognized powers such as In 1980, petitioner Pio Barretto Realty Devt. Corporation
(Barretto Realty) bought several parcels of land from the
selling, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering
estate of Deprin represented by Atty. Trinidad.
realty belonging to the estate. Consequently, titles were transferred in its name. Later,
respondent Moslares instituted an action for annulment
Here, the Motion for Approval was meant to of sale claiming that the same parcels of land had
settle the decedent's obligation to Lina; hence, already been sold to him by the deceased Drepin.
that obligation clearly falls under the jurisdiction
of the settlement court. To require Lina to file a To settle the case, a compromise agreement
separate action — on whether petitioners should was executed by both parties which was
approved by the Court. The agreement gave Moslares
convey the title to Eliodoro's share of the
and Barretto Realty options to buy the disputed lots thus
disputed realty — will unnecessarily prolong the implicitly recognizing that the one who paid first had
settlement of the intestate estates of the priority in right. Subsequent disagreements, however,
deceased spouses. arose on the question of who bought the properties first.
3. Yes, Lina may file an application for the approval Moslares claimed that he bought the lots fist on
of the sale in the settlement case. January 1990 by delivering to Atty. Trinidad two checks,
one in favor of Barretto Realty and the other, in favor of
the Drepin Estate. But petitioner Barretto Realty denied 2. Whether or not petitioner’s payment in
receiving the check. Instead, it claimed that it bought check constituted a legal tender of payment
the properties on March 1990 by tendering checks to (Mercantile)
Moslares and to the judicial administrator of the estate. 3. Whether or not the principle of laches
However, Moslares and Atty. Trinidad refused already attached against the Petitioner
acceptance, prompting Barretto Realty to move for (Remedial)
execution the compromise judgment.
Held:
The court granted the same and issued an
order directing the parties to deposit with the I. YES, Respondent judge gravely abused
court their respective monetary obligations. his discretion in granting Moslares’
Pursuant thereto, the deputy sheriff personally motion for execution.
delivered petitioner's checks to Moslares and the Final and executory decisions, more so with
estate. those already executed, may no longer be
amended except only to correct errors
More than 3 years later, Moslares filed a motion
which are clerical in nature. They become
for execution alleging that he bought the lots subject of
the law of the case and are immutable and
the compromise and that the previous tender of the
unalterable regardless of any claim of error
checks by petitioner did not produce the effect of
or incorrectness. Amendments or
payment. Respondent Judge granted Moslares' Motion
alterations which substantially affect such
for Execution and issued an order for Barreto Realty to
judgments as well as the entire proceedings
execute a deed of conveyance in favor of Moslares.
held for that purpose are null and void for
Aggrieved, Barretto Realty moved for lack of jurisdiction.
reconsideration alleging that respondent Judge
It is not disputed that petitioner Barretto
could no longer grant Moslares' motion since the
Realty bought the disputed lots of the
prior sale of subject lots in its favor had already
Drepin Estate subject matter of the
been recognized when the court sheriff was
Compromise Agreement ahead of Moslares
directed to deliver, and did in fact deliver, the
and that the checks issued in payment
checks it issued in payment therefor to Moslares
thereof were even personally delivered by
and Atty. Trinidad.
the Deputy Sheriff of the RTC-Br. 18,
Respondent Judge granted the motion of Manila, upon Order of respondent Judge
Barretto Realty for reconsideration. This was however after tender was refused by Moslares and
overturned by the same Judge when respondent the Drepin Estate. Respondent Moslares
Mosrales moved for reconsideration and claimed that the never raised the invalidity of the payment
check was not valid because the check was not through checks either through a motion for
encashed, hence, did not produce the effect of payment. reconsideration or a timely appeal. Hence,
Judge Laguio ruled that Barretto Realty's payment with the complete execution and
through checks was not valid because "a check is not satisfaction of the Decision dated 24 July
legal tender and it cannot produce the effect of payment 1986 which approved the Compromise
until it is encashed.” Agreement, Civil Case No. 84-27008
became closed and terminated leaving
Ultimately, Barretto Realty filed a petition for nothing else to be done by the trial court.
certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary Clearly then respondent Judge Laguio no
restraining order and/or preliminary injunction with the longer had any jurisdiction whatsoever to
Court of Appeals assailing the Orders of respondent act on, much less grant, the motion for
Judge on the ground that they were issued with grave execution and supplement thereto filed by
abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals however Moslares.
dismissed the petition and ruled that the Respondent
Judge has not gravely abused his discretion. Hence, this Considering the foregoing, respondent
petition in Court. Judge’s Order which granted private
respondent's motion for execution thus
Issues: nullifying the 1990 sale in favor of
petitioner after he had in effect approved
1. Whether or not the Respondent Judge such sale in his Order of 14 June 1990 and
gravely abused his discretion in after such order had already become final
granting Moslares’ motion for and executory, amounted to an oppressive
execution which nullified the 1990 sale exercise of judicial authority, a grave
in favor of petitioner (Remedial) abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction, for which reason, all she gave half of her inherited properties to Miguelita on
further orders stemming therefrom are also the condition that both would undertake to be business
null and void and without effect. partners. She then nominated her son, Emmanuel Ching,
to be special administrator.
II. YES, petitioner’s payment in check
constituted a legal tender of payment. The RTC(intestate court) issued an order appointing
petitioner and Emmanuel Ching as administrators of the
While delivery of a check produces the Estate. Petitioner submitted an inventory of the estate
effect of payment only when it is encashed, while Emmanuel did not.
the rule is otherwise if the debtor was
prejudiced by the creditor's unreasonable Petitioner then filed a motion for the: (1) payment of
delay in presentment. estate taxes; (2) partition and distribution of estate
among declared heirs; and (3) payment of attorney’s
Acceptance of a check implies an
fees. Respondent opposed stating that it was premature
undertaking of due diligence in presenting it
for payment. If no such presentment was to distribute as there is still no determination whether
made, the drawer cannot be held liable the properties in the inventory are conjugal, paraphernal
irrespective of loss or injury sustained by or owned in a joint venture.
the payee. Payment will be deemed effected
and the obligation for which the check was RTC denied the petitioner’s prayer for the partition and
given as conditional payment will be distribution of estate because it is premature. But it
discharged. allowed the payment of tax and attorney’s fees.
7. PACIOLES vs. CHUATOCO-CHING, As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the trial court either
G.R. No. 127920, 9 AUGUST 2005 as an intestate or probate court relates only to matters
having to do with the settlement of the estate and
Facts: (Petitioner – husband of the deceased; probate of will of deceased persons but does not extend
Respondent – mother of the deceased) to the determination of questions of ownership that arise
during the proceedings. (Rationale: Intestate or Probate
Miguelita died intestate. She was survived by her
Court exercises special and limited jurisdiction. The
husband (petitioner) and their two minor children.
questions must be submitted to the court in the exercise
Petitioner then filed a verified petition in the RTC for the
of its general jurisdictions as a RTC)
settlement of Miguelita’s estate.
An exception to the rule: when its purpose is to
Miguelita’s mother (respondent) filed an opposition on
determine whether or not a property should be included
the ground that: (1) petitioner is incompetent and unfit;
in the inventory. In such situations, the adjudication is
and (2) bulk of Miguelita’s estate is composed of
merely incidental and provisional.
paraphernal properties. Respondent then prayed that
letters of administration be issued to her. The CA misapplied the above rule. Under the said pri-
nciple, the key consideration is that the purpose
Petitioner moved to strike out the opposition alleging
of the intestate or probate court in hearing and
that respondent has no direct and material interest in
passing upon questions of ownership is merely to
the estate, she not being a compulsory heir. Respondent
determine WON a property should be included in
countered that she has interest in the estate because
the inventory. Such was not the purpose in this RTC dismissed the case. It declared petitioner as an
case. adopted child on the strength of the order of adoption.
However, she could not ask for partition of the subject
First, the inventory was not disputed. The respondent lands as she was not able to prove any of the instances
expressly adopted the inventory prepared by petitioner. that would invalidate the deed of absolute sale.
Moreover, the action for annulment of sale was
Second, Respondent’s son, Emmanuel did not submit
improper as it constituted a collateral attack on the title
his own inventory. He is deemed to have acquiesced
of Rogelio and Orlando.ralaw
with petitioner’s inventory.
irtualaw library
Obviously, respondent’s purpose was not to obtain from
On MR, RTC held that while it may have committed a
the RTC a ruling what properties should or should not be
mistake in declaring the subject lands as exclusive
included in the inventory. She instead wanted to secure
properties of Maximino (as its conjugal nature had
from the intestate court a final determination of her
already been admitted by the parties), the action was
claim of ownership over the properties comprising
still dismissible on the ground that it was a collateral
Miguelita’s estate.
attack on the title of Rogelio and Orlando. No appeal
Respondent’s recourse is to file a separate action with a was taken thereby, allowing the same to lapse into
court of general jurisdiction. The bulk of Miguelita’s finality.
estate comprises real estates covered by the Torren
Systems which are registered in the name of Miguelita Subsequently, petitioner filed twin petitions (LRC cases)
alone or with petitioner. They are considered the owners before the same RTC, for the amendment of Rogelio &
until such is nullified or modified in an appropriate Orlando’s TCTs to include her name and her heirs and
ordinary action. successors-in-interest as registered owners to the extent
of 1/3 of the lands covered therein based on Sec. 108 of
8. BAGAYAS vs. BAGAYAS, PD No. 1529 or the “Property Registration Decree.” To
G.R. Nos. 187308 & 187517, substantiate her “interest”, petitioner capitalized on the
18 SEPTEMBER 2013 RTC’s finding that she is the adopted child of the
deceased spouses, and that Eligia’s signature in the
Facts:
deed of absolute sale was falsified.ralaw vtualaw library
Petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of sale and
Petitions were dismissed on the ground of res judicata;
partition before the RTC claiming that Rogelio, Felicidad,
that the causes of action of the previously dismissed
Rosalina, Michael, and Mariel Bagayas (respondents)
case and LRC cases were similar as the ultimate
intended to exclude her from inheriting from the estate
objective would be her inclusion as co-owner of the
of her legally adoptive parents, Maximino Bagayas and
subject lands and the partition thereof.
Eligia Clemente, by falsifying a deed of absolute sale
purportedly executed by the spouses, transferring 2 Issues
parcels of land to their biological children, Rogelio and
Orlando. The deed, supposedly executed in 1974, bore 1. WON the RTC was correct in dismissing petitioner’s
Eligia’s signature who could not have affixed the same petition for annulment of sale and partition on the
because she died in 1971. By virtue of the same, the ground that it constituted a collateral attack on the title
of Rogelio and Orlando? (NO)
Bagayas brothers were able to secure 2 TCTs in their
favor.
2. WON it was proper to dismiss the LRC cases for
During trial, respondents denied the adoption; that
amendment of title? (YES)
petitioner had not even lived with them. Rogelio also
claimed that after their parents died, he and Orlando
executed a document denominated as “Deed of The Court's Ruling
Extrajudicial Succession” over the subject lands to effect
the transfer of titles to their names. But before it could 1. NO. RTC erroneously dismissed petitioner’s petition
be registered, a deed of absolute sale transferring the for annulment of sale and partition on the ground that it
subject lands to them was discovered from Maximino’s constituted a collateral attack since she was actually
old files, which they used to acquire titles. assailing Rogelio and Orlando’s title to the subject lands
and not any Torrens certificate of title over it.
In a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a 2. YES, dismissal was proper, but not on the ground of
declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject res judicata as the two cases involved different causes
properties; and second, the conveyance of his lawful of action.
shares. An action for partition is at once an action
for declaration of co-ownership and for First. No partition was decreed in the first case, instead,
segregation and conveyance of a determinate it was dismissed. Consequently, the declaration that
portion of the properties involved. The petitioner is the legally adopted child did not amount to
determination, therefore, as to the existence of co- a declaration of heirship and co-ownership upon which
ownership is necessary in the resolution of an action for petitioner may institute an action for the amendment of
partition. As held in Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia: the certificates of title covering the subject land. More
importantly, the Court consistently ruled that the trial
The first phase of a partition court cannot make a declaration of heirship in an
and/or accounting suit is taken up ordinary civil action, for matters relating to the
with the determination of whether rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated
or not a co-ownership in fact in a special proceeding instituted precisely for
exists, and a partition is proper and the purpose of determining such rights.cralaw
may be made by voluntary agreement virtualaw library
of all the parties interested in the Second. Petitioner cannot avail of the summary
property. This phase may end with a proceedings under Section 108 of PD 1529 because the
declaration that plaintiff is not entitled present controversy involves not the amendment of the
to have a partition either because a co- certificates of title issued in favor of Rogelio and
ownership does not exist, or partition is Orlando but the partition of the estate of Maximino and
legally prohibited. It may end, on the Eligia who are both deceased. The prevailing rule is that
other hand, with an adjudgment that a proceedings under Section 108 are summary in nature,
co-ownership does in truth exist, contemplating corrections or insertions of mistakes
partition is proper in the premises and which are only clerical but certainly not controversial
an accounting of rents and profits issues. Relief under said legal provision can only be
received by the defendant from the real granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or that
estate in question is in order. In the there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the
latter case, the parties may, if they are part of any party in interest. (PVB v. Valenzuela)
able to agree, make partition among
themselves by proper instruments of The remedy then of petitioner is to institute
intestate proceedings for the settlement of the
conveyance, and the court shall confirm
estate of the deceased spouses Maximino and
the partition so agreed upon. In either Eligia. Petition denied.
case – i.e., either the action is dismissed
or partition and/or accounting is 9. ROMERO vs. CA & ROMERO,
decreed – the order is a final one, and G.R. No. 188921, 18 APRIL 2012
may be appealed by any party
aggrieved thereby. x x x Facts:
This regards a case of nullification of sale filed by
In Lacbayan v. Samoy, Jr., the Court categorically petitioner heirs against the administrator, and aslo their
pronounced that a resolution on the issue of ownership mother, Aurora and brother Vittorio. This involves
does not subject the Torrens title issued over the property that they allege is a part of the estate of their
disputed realties to a collateral attack. What cannot be deceased father and whose title was transferred to
collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the Vittorio’s name employing force and threat against her.
title itself. The certificate referred to is that document Vittorio on the otherhand in his defense claims that the
issued by the Register of Deeds known as the TCT. In subject properties are paraphernal and he was just
contrast, the title referred to by law means ownership redeeming it. The RTC dismissed the petition on the
which is, more often than not, represented by that ground that there was still no partition among the
document. Title as a concept of ownership should not compulsory heirs thus requiring first the determination
be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of of the intestate court as to the particular share of each.
such ownership. After, they filed a rule 65 petition with the CA but the
latter also dismissed the case reiterating the ruling of The OSG subsequently filed an appeal through notice of
the RTC, thus they finally appealed it through a rule 45 appeal. The trial court noting that no record of appeal
petition with the Supreme Court. was filed and served pursuant to the Rules of the Court,
denied the appeal.
ISSUE: WoN petitioners can file a separate action of
annulment, and reconveyance of title despite the The decision was then elevated before the Court of
pendency of the settlement of the estate? Appeals on which the OSG contented that the
declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the
RULING: NO. 1) While a probate court can issue a Family Code is not a special proceeding nor a case
provisional determination of ownership it is only involving multiple or separate appeals therefore
applicable when it is between the reprsentative of the requiring a record on appeal.
estate and strangers. In this case, the parties are both
Issue: WON declaration of presumptive is a special
heirs of the estate.
proceeding and therefore would require a record on
2) The Court also noted that the real issue in this case appeal?
was not the determination of ownership but the
Ruling: No. Declaration of presumptive death is not a
determination of which property is deemed to be
included in the estate, thus such matters rest with the special proceeding therefore requiring a record on
appeal.
probate court.
RULE 72
3) Sec. 3, Rule 87 applies in this particular case because
SUBJECT MATTER AND
none of the exceptions are present. It was not
established that Aurora violated the order of the probate APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL RULES
court or entered into sales of agreement in violation of Section 1. Subject matter of special
her trust. Thus the no case can be filed against the proceedings.— Rules of special proceedings are
administrator until there is an order of assignment or the provided for in the following: xxxx
expiration of the time to pay debts.
(m) Declaration of absence and death;
4) Lastly the Court said that even if the properties were
conjugal, the actions of the administrator are subject to Art. 41 of Family Code
the sole jurisdiction of the probate court. xxxAHcDEI
10. REPUBLIC vs. JOMOC, For the purpose of contracting the subsequent
6 MAY 2005 marriage under the preceding paragraph, the
spouses present must institute a summary
Facts: proceeding as provided in this Code for the
In "In the Matter of Declaration of Presumptive Death of
declaration of presumptive death of the
Absentee Spouse Clemente P. Jomoc, Apolinaria
Malinao Jomoc, petitioner," the Ormoc City, Regional absentee, without prejudice to the effect of a
Trial Court, Branch 35, by Order of September 29, 1999, reappearance of the absent spouse
granted the petition on the basis of the Commissioner's
There is no doubt that the petition of
Report and accordingly declared the absentee spouse,
who had left his petitioner-wife nine years earlier, Apolinaria Jomoc required, and is, therefore, a summary
proceeding under the Family Code, not a special
presumptively dead.
proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal for
In granting the petition, the trial judge, cited Article 41, which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being
par. 2 of the Family Code. Said article provides that for a summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a Notice of
the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent Appeal from the trial court's order sufficed.
marriage during the subsistence of a previous marriage
11. SAMPILO vs. SALACUP,
where the prior spouse had been absent for four
28 FEBRUARY 1958
consecutive years, the spouse present must
institute summary proceedings for the declaration of Facts: (Rule 74)
presumptive death of the absentee spouse , without Teodoro Tolete died intestate in 1945. He left four
prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absent parcels of land. He left as heirs his widow Leoncia and
spouse. several nephews and nieces, children of deceased
brothers and sisters. Without any judicial proceedings, of them should take part in the extrajudicial settlement.
Leoncia, in July 1946 executed an affidavit stating that In Sec. 4, the “distributes and estate” are indicated as
Teodoro left no children or dependents, neither persons to answer for the rights violated by the
ascendants or acknowledged natural children, neither extrajudicial settlement. There cannot be any doubt that
brother, sisters, nephews or nieces, but her, the those who took part or had knowledge are bound. As to
legitimate wife, the one and only person to inherit the them, they may demand their rights or interest within
above properties. the period of 2 years and both distributes and estate
would be liable.
The affidavit was registered in the Register of Deeds. On
the same day, she executed a deed of sale of all the In both sections, there is no express mention of the
parcels of land in favor of Sampilo. The sale was also effect of the extrajudicial settlement on persons who did
registered in the Register of Deeds. Sampilo in turn sold not take part or had no notice or knowledge. It is
the parcels of land to Salacup and was registered in the unreasonable and unjust that they also be required to
Register of Deeds. assert their claims within 2 years. To extend the effects
of the settlement to them would be violative of the
In March 1950, Sinopera then instituted proceedings fundamental right to due process.
for the administration of the estate of Teodoro and
having secured her appointment as administratrix, The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 of
brought the action to recover the parcels of land. The extrajudicial settlement or by affidavit, is an ex parte
complaint alleges that Leoncia had no right to execute proceeding. It cannot by any reason or logic be
the affidavit of adjudication and that Salacup acquired contended that such settlement or distribution would
no rights to the lands sold to him, and neither did affect third persons who had no knowledge either of the
Sampilo. Salacup and Sampilo filed an amended answer death of the decedent or of the extrajudicial settlement
alleging that they were innocent purchasers for value or affidavit, especially as no mention of such effect is
made, either directly or by implication.
CFI rendered judgment for Sinopera, that the affidavit of
adjudication and the 2 deed of sales were null and void, Hence, Sec. 4, barring distributees or heirs from
that Sinopera was owner of ½ portion of the 4 parcels objecting to an extrajudicial partition after the expiration
of land, and that the usufructuary rights of Leoncia to of 2 years from such extrajudicial partition, is applicable
the properties terminated. only (1) to persons who have participated or taken part
or had notice of the extrajudicial partition, and, in
CA held the annulment of the adjudication, but the addition, (2) when the provisions of Sec. 1 have been
annulment of the deed of sales and the adjudication of strictly complied with. The case at bar fails to comply
the ½ share to Sinopera as premature. with both requirements because not all the heirs
interested have participated in the extrajudicial
In appealing to SC by certiorari, they argued that the
settlement, the CA having found that the decedent left,
action was instituted almost 4 years after the affidavit of
aside from his widow, nephews and nieces living at the
adjudication was registered in the Register of Deeds,
time of his death.
hence the right of action has prescribed since it was not
brought within 2 years as prescribed by Sec. 4, Rule 74. Furthermore, appellants argued that Sinopera’s action is
barred by the statute of limitations. There is nothing that
Issues
supports this contention. It is only a bar against parties
1. Whether or not Sinopera’s right of action to recover who had taken part in the extrajudicial proceedings, but
her and her co-heir’s participation to the lands had not not against 3rd persons not parties thereto.
prescribed at the time the action to recover was filed.
Even if Sec. 4 was a statute of limitations, it is still
2. Whether or not the Sinopera and Sampilo are unavailing as 1) the action was based on fraud, and 2)
innocent purchasers for value? the right of action did not lapse as the judicial
proceedings were instituted in March 1950 and was
Ruling instituted soon after the discovery of fraud.
1. Yes, it did not prescribe. In Sec. 1, Rule 74, it is 2. They are not innocent purchasers of value. As
required that if there are two or more heirs, both or all Sampilo is a nephew of Leoncia and had been living with
her and was with Leoncia during the preparation of the faithful compliance with all the requirements necessary
affidavit of adjudication and deed of conveyance. for the issuance of a free patent.
Petitioner’s Argument/s: In the case at bar, however, it is the rule rather than the
exception which should apply.
In their answer, the Heirs: (a) denied having sold any
portion of the Tanza estate to anyone; (b) they and their 2. Yes, the heirs convincingly established their
predecessors-in-interest had been and were still in open and continuous possession of the entire Tanza
estate, including Lot 5793, through their tenant Miguel
actual, continuous, adverse and public possession of the
Dahilig. After Miguel’s death, he was succeeded by
land in the concept of an owner since time immemorial; Marcelo Saludares who testified during the trial that: (a)
and (c) title to Lot 5793 was issued in their favor after the farm was under the administration of Beata and
Isabel Dator who took over its management after Petra registration of the extrajudicial partition with the
Dator died; (b) he had been consistently tending the Registry of Deeds. According to petitioner, the two-year
land since 1947; (c) he was the one who planted the period commenced from July 8, 1982, the date of
various crops and trees thereon.
inscription of the extrajudicial settlement on the OCT.
If private Respondents indeed owned Lot 5793, they
ISSUES:
should have filed an application for it, or at least
opposed the Heirs’ application for free patent over said 1. Whether or not the private respondents’ claim against
lot, to protect their interests. But even assuming that
expropriated property already prescribed?
private Respondents indeed validly acquired Lot 5793 in
1966 as they claimed, they nevertheless slept on their
2. Whether or not an action for reconveyance lie against
right to secure title thereto. Their unexplained inaction
for more than 11 years rendered their demand for the expropriated property?
reconveyance stale.
RULING:
13. PEZA vs. FERNANDEZ, 1. A perusal of Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of
G.R. No. 138971, 6 JUNE 2001 Court will show that persons unduly deprived of their
lawful participation in a settlement may assert their
Facts: claim only within the two-year period after the
On May 15, 1982, Jorgea Igot-Soroño, Frisca Booc and settlement and distribution of the estate. This
Felix Cuizon executed an Extrajudicial Partition, in which prescription period does not apply, however, to
they declared themselves as the only surviving heirs of those who had no part in or had no notice of the
the registered owners of the contested lot. settlement. The above provision is not meant to be a
Consequently, they were issued a Transfer Certificate of statute of limitations. Moreover, by no reason or logic
Title (TCT) on July 8, 1982. can one contend that an extrajudicial partition, being
merely an ex parte proceeding, would affect third
The said lot was among the objects of expropriation
persons who had no knowledge thereof. Be that as it
proceedings with the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, which
may, it cannot be denied, either, that by its registration
rendered a partial Decision on August 11, 1982
in the manner provided by law, a transaction may be
approving the Compromise Agreement entered into
known actually or constructively.
between the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA)
and the new registered owners; namely, Jorgea Igot- In the present case, private respondents are deemed to
Soroño, Frisca Booc and Felix Cuizon. As a have been constructively notified of the extrajudicial
consequence, PEZA acquired title over the lot and the settlement by reason of its registration and annotation in
corresponding TCT was issued in its name on October the certificate of title over the subject lot. From the time
13, 1982. of registration, private respondents had two (2) years or
until July 8, 1984, within which to file their objections or
to demand the appropriate settlement of the estate.
On July 29, 1996, private respondents filed with the RTC
of Lapu-Lapu City a Complaint for Nullity of Documents, The only exception to the above-mentioned prescription
Redemption and Damages against petitioner and Jorgea- is when the title remains in the hands of the heirs who
Igot Soroño et al. The Complaint alleged that the private have fraudulently caused the partition of the subject
respondents had been excluded from the extrajudicial property or in those of their transferees who cannot be
settlement of the estate. It likewise sought the considered innocent purchasers for value. In this case,
nullification of several documents, including the TCT however, title to the property was no longer in the name
dated October 13, 1992, issued in the name of PEZA. of the allegedly fraudulent heirs, but already in that of
an innocent purchaser for value – the government.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
Moreover, the government is presumed to have acted in
arguing that private respondents’ claim against the
good faith in the acquisition of the lot, considering that
subject property has already prescribed, because the
title thereto was obtained through a Compromise
two-year period under Section 4, Rule 74 of the
Agreement judicially approved in proper expropriation
Rules of Court, within which an unduly excluded heir
proceedings.
may seek a new settlement of the estate had already
lapsed. Petitioner further argues that private
respondents received constructive notice in view of the
Even assuming that there was in fact fraud on the part For an action for reconveyance to prosper,
of the other heirs, private respondents may proceed only the property should not have passed into the
against the defrauding heirs, not against PEZA which hands of an innocent purchaser for value. In this
had no participation in or knowledge of the alleged case, the property has already been conveyed to the
fraud. The fact that the co-heirs’ title to the property government in appropriate expropriation proceedings,
was fraudulently secured cannot prejudice the rights of the regularity or validity of which has not been
petitioner which, absent any showing that it had questioned. PEZA should enjoy the security afforded to
knowledge or participation in the irregularity, is innocent third persons under our registration laws.
considered a purchaser in good faith and for value.
Notwithstanding, the remedy of an owner alleged to
(Issue below is not related to special proceedings but have been prejudiced or fraudulently deprived of
may be asked during recitations) property that was subsequently sold to an innocent
purchaser for value is an action for damages against
2. The private respondents’ action to recover the subject the person or persons who perpetrated the fraud.
property from the government cannot be maintained,
14. CUA vs. VARGAS,
not only because of the prescription of the action, but on
G.R. No. , 31 OCTOBER 2006
account of the protection given to innocent purchasers
for value granted under our land registration laws. Facts: A parcel of land with an area of 99 sqm located
in Catanduanes was left behind by the late Paulina
An action for reconveyance resulting from fraud
Vargas. A notarized Extrajudicial Settlement among the
prescribes 4 years from the discovery of the fraud; such
9 heirs of Paulina was executed, each one of them
discovery is deemed to have taken place upon the
getting a share of 11 sqm. Only 5 heirs of the 9
issuance of the certificate of title over the
signed it. The extrajudicial settlement was published in
property. Registration of real property is considered a
the Catanduanes Tribune for three consecutive weeks.
constructive notice to all persons and, thus, the four-
year period shall be counted therefrom. Clearly then, An Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs with Sale was
private respondents’ action for reconveyance based on again executed by and among the same heirs over the
fraud has already prescribed, considering that title to same property and also with the same sharings. Still,
said property had been issued way back on August 11, only 5 of the 9 signed it. The land was sold to petitioner
1982, while the reivindicatory suit was instituted only on Cua.
July 29, 1996.
Gloria Vargas (widow of one of the heirs who didn’t sign
Even an action for reconveyance based on an implied or the extrajudicial settlement) claimed that she came to
a constructive trust would have already prescribed just know of the Extra Judicial Settlement with Sale only 1
the same, because such action prescribes ten (10) years year later. After knowing of the sale of the 55 sqm, she
from the alleged fraudulent registration or date of tried to redeem the property.
issuance of the certificate of title over the property. The
imprescriptibility of an action for reconveyance based on When the offer to redeem was refused, she filed a case
implied or constructive trust applies only when the for annulment of Extra Judicial Settlement and Legal
plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is in possession Redemption of the lot.
of the property. In effect, the action for reconveyance is
an action to quiet the property title, which does not The MTC and RTC ruled against her. However, the CA
prescribe. Undisputedly, private respondents are not in reversed the ruling and pronounced that pursuant to
possession of the disputed property. In fact, they do not Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, the extrajudicial
even claim to be in possession of it, even if to do so settlement made by the other co-heirs is not binding
would enable them to justify the imprescriptibility of upon respondents considering the latter never
their action. participated in it nor did they ever signify their consent
to the same. Thus, this petition.
Finally, it must be remembered that reconveyance is a
remedy of those whose property has been wrongfully or Petitioner’s Argument: The acquisition by petitioner
erroneously registered in the name of another. Such of the subject property subsequent to the extrajudicial
recourse, however, cannot be availed of once the partition was valid because the partition was duly
property has passed to an innocent purchaser for value. published. The publication of the same constitutes due
notice to respondents and signifies their implied G.R. No. 194366, 10 OCTOBER 2012
acquiescence. Respondents are therefore estopped from
denying the validity of the partition and sale at this late Facts:
stage. Considering that the partition was valid, Anunciacion Neri had seven children, 2 from her first
respondents no longer have the right to redeem the marriage (Eutropia and Victoria) and 5 from her second
property. marriage with Enrique Neri (Napoleon, Alicia, Visminda,
Douglas and Rosa). From 1957 to 1967, Anunciacion
ISSUE: 1. WON heirs are deemed constructively notified and Enrique acquired homestead properties in Samal,
and bound, regardless of their failure to participate Davao del Norte. Anunciacion died intestate. On 7 July
therein, by an extrajudicial settlement and partition of 1979, Enrique--in his personal capacity and as the
estate when such has been duly published – NO, not natural guardian of his minor children Rosa and
bound. Dougles--and his 3 adult children adjudicated among
themselves the homestead properties and sold them to
2. WON respondents can redeem – YES. the Spouses Uy.
RULING: 1. The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule On June 11, 1996, the 5 Neri children filed a complaint
74 is an ex parte proceeding. The rule plainly states, for annulment of sale of the homestead properties. They
however, that persons who do not participate or later amended the complaint to include Eutropia and
had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement will Victoria as additional plaintiffs, for having been excluded
not be bound thereby. and deprived of their legitimes as children of
Anunciacion from her first marriage. The Heirs of the
It contemplates a notice that has been sent out or
Spouses Uy denied knowledge of Eutropia and Victoria’s
issued before any deed of settlement and/or partition is
exclusion. They raised the defenses of prescription and
agreed upon, and not after such an agreement has
knowledge.
already been executed as what happened in the instant
case with the publication of the first deed of extrajudicial The RTC annulled the sale, but this was reversed by the
settlement among heirs. CA, which found it unconscionable to annul a sale
executed 17 years ago. The children of Anunciacion thus
The publication of the settlement does not constitute
filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
constructive notice to the heirs who had no knowledge
or did not take part in it because the same was notice ISSUES
after the fact of execution
1. W/N the sale should be annulled.
The records of the present case confirm that
respondents never signed either of the settlement 2. W/N the action to recover property had prescribed.
documents. Following Rule 74, these extrajudicial
settlements do not bind respondents, and the partition RULING
made without their knowledge and consent is invalid
1. YES, but only with respect to the shares of
insofar as they are concerned.
Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas. Petitioners herein
2. Respondents are given the right to redeem the shares are all legitimate children of Anunciacion, who are
sold pursuant to Article 1088 of the NCC. The right to entitled to inherit in equal shares. Because Eutropia
redeem was never lost because respondents were never and Victoria were excluded and minors Rosa and
notified in writing of the actual sale by their co-heirs. Douglas were not properly represented, the
Based on the provision, there is a need for written notice extrajudicial settlement of Anunciacion’s properties
to start the period of redemption was void. Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court
provides:
The period of one month within which to redeem shall
be reckoned from the time that a co-heir is notified in The fact of the extrajudicial settlement
writing by the vendor of the actual sale. Written notice or administration shall be published in a
is indispensable and mandatory, actual newspaper of general circulation in the
knowledge of the sale notwithstanding. manner provided in the next succeeding
section; but no extra judicial
15. NERI vs. HEIRS OF SPOUSES UY,
settlement shall be binding upon
any person who has not Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas claimed to have
participated therein or had no knowledge of the extrajudicial settlement with sale after
notice thereof. the death Enrique in 1994. The Spouses Uy failed to
refute this. Hence, the complaint filed in 1997 was well
While the settlement of the estate is void, the within the prescriptive period.
sale of the homestead properties by Enrique and
16. TORBELA vs. ROSARIO,
his 3 adult children is valid, but only with
G.R. No. 140528, 7 DECEMBER 2011
respect to their proportionate shares therein. As
owners, they can sell their undivided share in Special Proceeding Topic: Rule 98 (Trustees)
the estate. With respect to the minors Rosa and
Douglas, the laws prevailing at that time clothed NOTE: This is a very long case (31 pages). I included all
Enrique only with powers of administration. issues just in case Atty likes to ask unrelated questions.
Administration includes all acts for the But focus on the issue on Trusts.
preservation of the property and the receipt of
SUMMARY:
fruits according to the natural purpose of the
The spouses Eugenio and Marta Torbela received a
thing. parcel of land from Marta’s sister.
The natural guardian of the minor under Upon the death of the spouses, the Land was
parental authority does not have the power to adjudicated in equal shares among their children. These
dispose or encumber the property of the latter. children executed a Deed of Absolute Quitclaim over the
Such power is granted by law only to a judicial land in favor of their nephew, Dr. Rosario. Another Deed
guardian of the ward's property, which requires of Absolute Quitclaim was executed, this time by Dr.
the giving of a bond subject to the approval of Rosario, acknowledging that he only borrowed the land
and was already returning it to his aunts and uncles.
the RTC. Furthermore, such disposal must be
The latter Deed was notarized but was not immediately
with the courts' prior approval. Unless the sale is annotated on the title of the land, hence, the title was
ratified by Rosa and Douglas when they reach still in the name of Dr. Rosario. Dr. Rosario mortgaged
the age of majority, he disputed sale entered the land to Banco Filipino for a loan, without the consent
into by Enrique in their behalf, without the of the Torbela Siblings.
proper judicial authority, is unenforceable in
The Torbela Siblings filed a complaint for recovery of
accordance with Articles 1317 and 1403(1) of
ownership and possession of the subject land against
the Civil Code. Dr. Rosario and Banco Filipino. The trial court ruled in
their favor which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Ratification means that one under no disability
voluntarily adopts and gives sanction to some The main contention of the Torbela siblings in this case
unauthorized act or defective proceeding, which is that Dr. Rosario could not have validly mortgaged the
without his sanction would not be binding on lot in issue since he only held it in trust for the Torbela
him. Records of the case show that Rosa had Siblings.
ratified the extrajudicial settlement of the estate
FACTS:
with absolute deed of sale, but the same is not
This case involves two consolidated petitions:
true with respect to Douglas. 1. G.R. No. 140528- Petitioners are the Torbela
siblings
2. NO. Because the sale was partially 2. G.R. No. 140553- Petitioner is the ex-wife of
defective, the Spouses Uy were deemed to Dr. Andres Rosario (they are legally separated).
be holding the 3/16 shares of Eutropia, Dr. Rosario is the son of Eufrosina Torbela
Victoria and Douglas under an implied Rosario and the nephew of the other Torbela
constructive trust, in accordance with siblings.
Article 1456 of the Civil Code. The action to
The case involves a parcel of land located in Pangasinan,
recover property held in trust prescribes
Lot No. 356-A that belonged to Marta Semilla, married to
after 10 years from the time the cause of Eugenio Torbela (spouses Torbela). Upon the deaths of
action accrues, which is from the time of the spouses Torbela, Lot No. 356-A was adjudicated in
actual notice in case of unregistered deed. equal shares among their children, the Torbela siblings,
by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition 9 dated
December 3, 1962.
The spouses Rosario afterwards failed to pay their loan
The Torbela siblings executed a Deed of Absolute from Banco Filipino. Banco Filipino extrajudicially
Quitclaim on December 12, 1964 in which they foreclosed the mortgages on Dr. Rosario’s property
transferred and conveyed Lot No. 356-A to Dr. Rosario including Lot No. 356-A. Banco Filipino was the lone
for the consideration of P9.00. However, the Torbela bidder and the certificate of Sale was annotated on Lot
siblings explained that they only executed the Deed as No. 356-A (TCT No. 52751).
an accommodation so that Dr. Rosario could have Lot
No. 356-A registered in his name and use said property On December 9, 1987, the Torbela siblings filed
to secure a loan from DBP, the proceeds of which would before the RTC their Amended Complaint, impleading
be used for building a hospital on Lot No. 356-A — a Banco Filipino as additional defendant in Civil Case No.
claim supported by testimonial and documentary U-4359 and praying that the spouses Rosario be
evidence, and borne out by the sequence of events ordered to redeem Lot No. 356-A from Banco Filipino.
immediately following the execution by the Torbela
siblings of said Deed. The spouses Rosario instituted before the RTC on
March 4, 1988 a case for annulment of extrajudicial
On December 16, 1964, TCT No. 52751, covering Lot foreclosure and damages, with prayer for a writ of
No. 356-A, was already issued in Dr. Rosario's name. On preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order,
December 28, 1964, Dr. Rosario executed his own against Banco Filipino, the Provincial Ex Officio Sheriff
Deed of Absolute Quitclaim, in which he expressly and his Deputy, and the Register of Deeds of
acknowledged that he "only borrowed" Lot No. 356-A Pangasinan. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. U-
and was transferring and conveying the same back to 4667. The Torbela siblings intervened in this case.
the Torbela siblings for the consideration of P1.00. On
February 21, 1965, Dr. Rosario's loan in the amount Meanwhile, the Torbela siblings tried to redeem Lot No.
of P70,200.00, secured by a mortgage on Lot No. 356-A, 356-A from Banco Filipino, but their efforts were
was approved by DBP. Soon thereafter, construction of a unsuccessful. Upon the expiration of the one-year
hospital building started on Lot No. 356-A. redemption period in April 1988, the Certificate of Final
Sale and Affidavit of Consolidation covering all
On May 16, 1967, Cornelio T. Tosino (Cornelio) foreclosed properties were executed on May 24, 1988
executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim, on behalf of the and May 25, 1988, respectively. New certificate of title
Torbela siblings. was issued for Lot 356-A namely TCT No. 165813.
On May 17, 1967, the Torbela siblings had Cornelio's The Torbela siblings thereafter filed before the RTC on
Affidavit of Adverse Claim dated May 16, 1967 and Dr. August 29, 1988 a Complaint for annulment of the
Rosario's Deed of Absolute Quitclaim dated December Certificate of Final Sale dated May 24, 1988, judicial
28, 1964 annotated on TCT No. 52751 as Entry Nos. cancellation of TCT No. 165813, and damages, against
274471 and 274472, respectively. Banco Filipino, the Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff, and the
Register of Deeds of Pangasinan, which was docketed as
In the meantime, Dr. Rosario acquired another loan Civil Case No. U-4733.
from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) sometime in
1979-1981. The loan was constituted on several On June 19, 1991, Banco Filipino filed before the RTC
properties named under Dr. Rosario and Lot No. 356-A of Urdaneta City a Petition for the issuance of a writ of
was among those. The loan agreement was annotated possession over the properties mortgaged by Dr. Rosario
on TCT No. 52751 (Lot No. 356-A) on March 6, 1981 including Lot No. 356-A, docketed as Pet. Case No. U-
as Entry No. 520099. 822.
On December 8, 1981, Dr. Rosario and his wife, The RTC jointly heard Civil Case Nos. U-4359 and U-
Duque-Rosario (spouses Rosario), acquired a third loan 4733 and Pet. Case No. U-822. The RTC ruled that:
in the amount of P1,200,000.00 from Banco Filipino The real estate mortgage over Lot 356-A
Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino). To secure covered by TCT 52751 executed by Spouses
said loan, the spouses Rosario again constituted Andres Rosario in favor of Banco Filipino, legal
mortgages on their properties including Lot No. 356-A. and valid;
Declaring the sheriff's sale over Lot 356-A
On February 13, 1986, the Torbela siblings filed covered by TCT No. 52751 legal and valid;
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta, Declaring Banco Filipino the owner of Lot 356-A
Pangasinan, a Complaint for recovery of ownership and covered by TCT No. 52751 (now TCT 165813);
possession of Lot No. 356-A, plus damages, against the Banco Filipino is entitled to a Writ of Possession
spouses Rosario, which was docketed as Civil Case No. over Lot 356-A together with the improvements
U-4359. thereon (Rose Inn Building);
The Torbela siblings are hereby ordered to routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence
render accounting to Banco Filipino the rental presented by the contending parties during the trial of
they received from tenants of Rose Inn Building; the case.
Banco Filipino is hereby ordered to give the
Torbela siblings the right of first refusal over Lot The above rule, however, is subject to a number of
356-A; exceptions, such as (1) when the inference made is
Dr. Rosario and Lena Rosario are hereby manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when
ordered to reimburse the Torbela siblings the there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding
market value of Lot 356-A as of December, is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or
1964; conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of
Dismissing the complaint of the Torbela siblings Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when
against Banco Filipino, Pedro Habon and Rufino the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of
Moreno. Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues
of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC with of both parties; (7) when the findings of the Court of
modifications. Motion for reconsideration was denied. Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when
Torbela siblings and Duque-Rosario filed separate the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of
Petitions before the SC. specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the
Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
The Torbela siblings asks the court that respondent facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly
Banco Filipino reconvey back Lot No. 356-A, covered by considered, would justify a different conclusion; and
T.C.T. No. 52751, in favor of the Torbela siblings who (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
are the actual owners of the same. are premised on the absence of evidence and are
contradicted by the evidence on record.
ISSUE/S:
The first, fourth, and ninth exceptions are extant in
PROCEDURAL these case.
1. W/N the SC can review the findings of fact by the
RTC and CA? YES 2. W/N Barangay Conciliation was a requisite to
2. W/N Barangay Conciliation was a requisite to the the institution of Civil case No. U-4359? NO
institution of Civil case No. U-4359? NO
Dr. Rosario contends that the Complaint of the Torbela
SUBSTANTIVE siblings for recovery of ownership and possession of Lot
1. W/N an express trust was established between the No. 356-A, plus damages, should have been dismissed
Torbela Siblings and Dr. Rosario? YES by the RTC because of the failure of the Torbela siblings
2. W/N the right of the Torbela siblings to to comply with the prior requirement of submitting the
recover Lot No. 356-A has prescribed? NO dispute to barangay conciliation.
3. W/N Banco Filipino was a mortgagee in good faith?
NO The original parties in Civil Case No. U-4359 (the Torbela
4. W/N rules on accession shall govern the siblings and the spouses Rosario) do not reside in the
improvements on Lot No. 356-A and the rents thereof? same barangay, or in different barangays within the
YES same city or municipality, or in different barangays of
5. W/N Dr. Rosario is liable for damages to different cities or municipalities but are adjoining each
the Torbela siblings? YES other.
6. W/N Banco Filipino is entitled to a writ of possession
for the other lots mortgaged by Dr. Rosario? YES Resultantly, the Lupon had no jurisdiction over the
dispute and barangay conciliation was not a pre-
HELD: condition for the filing of Civil Case No. U-4359.
PROCEDURAL ASPECT
SUBSTANTIVE ASPECT
1. W/N the SC can review the findings of fact by 1. W/N an express trust was established between
the RTC and CA? YES the Torbela Siblings and Dr. Rosario? YES
Ordinarily, the Court will not review, much less reverse, Registration does not vest title; it is merely the evidence
the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, especially of such title. Land registration laws do not give the
where such findings coincide with those of the trial holder any better title than what he actually has.
court. The findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are, Consequently, Dr. Rosario must still prove herein his
as a general rule, conclusive and binding upon this acquisition of title to Lot No. 356-A, apart from his
Court, since this Court is not a trier of facts and does not submission of TCT No. 52751 in his name.
between him and the Torbela siblings under Article 1451
Dr. Rosario testified that he obtained Lot No. 356-A after of the Civil Code.
paying the Torbela siblings P25,000.00, pursuant to a
verbal agreement with the latter. The Court though Dr. Rosario's execution of the Deed of Absolute
observes that Dr. Rosario's testimony on the execution Quitclaim on December 28, 1964, containing his express
and existence of the verbal agreement with the Torbela admission that he only borrowed Lot No. 356-A from the
siblings lacks significant details (such as the names of Torbela siblings, eventually transformed the nature of
the parties present, dates, places, etc.) and is not the trust to an express one. The express trust continued
corroborated by independent evidence. He may not despite Dr. Rosario stating in his Deed of Absolute
introduce extrinsic or oral evidence in violation of the Quitclaim that he was already returning Lot No. 356-A to
Parol Evidence Rule. the Torbela siblings as Lot No. 356-A remained
registered in Dr. Rosario's name under TCT No. 52751
It can also be said that Dr. Rosario is estopped from and Dr. Rosario kept possession of said property,
claiming or asserting ownership over Lot No. 356-A together with the improvements thereon.
based on his Deed of Absolute Quitclaim dated
December 28, 1964. Dr. Rosario's admission in the said 2. W/N the right of the Torbela siblings to
Deed that he merely borrowed Lot No. 356-A is deemed recover Lot No. 356-A has prescribed? NO
conclusive upon him.
The prescriptive period for the enforcement of an
Considering the foregoing, the Court agrees with the express trust of ten (10) years starts upon the
RTC and the Court of Appeals that Dr. Rosario only holds repudiation of the trust by the trustee.
Lot No. 356-A in trust for the Torbela siblings.
To apply the 10-year prescriptive period, which would
Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of bar a beneficiary's action to recover in an express trust,
property, the legal title to which is vested in another. It the repudiation of the trust must be proven by clear and
is a fiduciary relationship that obliges the trustee to deal convincing evidence and made known to the beneficiary.
with the property for the benefit of the beneficiary. Trust
relations between parties may either be express or The express trust disables the trustee from acquiring for
implied. An express trust is created by the intention of his own benefit the property committed to his
the trustor or of the parties, while an implied trust management or custody, at least while he does not
comes into being by operation of law. openly repudiate the trust, and makes such repudiation
known to the beneficiary or cestui que trust. For this
Express trusts are created by direct and positive acts of reason, the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act 190)
the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words declared that the rules on adverse possession do not
either expressly or impliedly evincing an intention to apply to "continuing and subsisting" (i.e., unrepudiated)
create a trust. Under Article 1444 of the Civil Code, "[n]o trusts. In an express trust, the delay of the beneficiary is
particular words are required for the creation of an directly attributable to the trustee who undertakes to
express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly hold the property for the former, or who is linked to the
intended." It is possible to create a trust without using beneficiary by confidential or fiduciary relations. The
the word "trust" or "trustee." Conversely, the mere fact trustee's possession is, therefore, not adverse to the
that these words are used does not necessarily indicate beneficiary, until and unless the latter is made aware
an intention to create a trust. The question in each case that the trust has been repudiated.
is whether the trustor manifested an intention to create
the kind of relationship which to lawyers is known as Dr. Rosario argues that he is deemed to have repudiated
trust. It is immaterial whether or not he knows that the the trust on December 16, 1964, when he registered Lot
relationship which he intends to create is called a trust, No. 356-A in his name under TCT No. 52751, so when
and whether or not he knows the precise characteristics on February 13, 1986, the Torbela siblings instituted
of the relationship which is called a trust. before the RTC Civil Case No. U-4359, for the recovery
of ownership and possession of Lot No. 356-A from the
In Tamayo v. Callejo, the Court recognized that a trust spouses Rosario, over 21 years had passed. Civil Case
may have a constructive or implied nature in the No. U-4359 was already barred by prescription, as well
beginning, but the registered owner's subsequent as laches.
express acknowledgement in a public document of a
previous sale of the property to another party, had the The Court already rejected a similar argument in Ringor
effect of imparting to the aforementioned trust the v. Ringor. A trustee who obtains a Torrens title over a
nature of an express trust. The same situation exists in property held in trust for him by another cannot
this case. When Dr. Rosario was able to register Lot No. repudiate the trust by relying on the registration. The
356-A in his name under TCT No. 52751 on December Court has held that for acquisitive prescription to bar the
16, 1964, an implied trust was initially established action of the beneficiary against the trustee in an
express trust for the recovery of the property held in
trust it must be shown that: (a) the trustee has
performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to The Court finds that Banco Filipino is not a mortgagee in
an ouster of the cestui que trust; (b) such positive acts good faith. Entry Nos. 274471-274472 (the adverse
of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que claim of Torbela siblings that was annotated on the title)
trust, and (c) the evidence thereon is clear and were not validly cancelled, and the improper cancellation
conclusive. should have been apparent to Banco Filipino and
aroused suspicion in said bank of some defect in Dr.
It is clear that under the foregoing jurisprudence, the Rosario's title.
registration of Lot No. 356-A by Dr. Rosario in his name
under TCT No. 52751 on December 16, 1964 is not the Whether under Section 110 of the Land Registration Act
repudiation that would have caused the 10-year or Section 70 of the Property Registration Decree, notice
prescriptive period for the enforcement of an express of adverse claim can only be cancelled after a party in
trust to run. interest files a petition for cancellation before the RTC
wherein the property is located, and the RTC conducts a
For repudiation of an express trust to be effective, the hearing and determines the said claim to be invalid or
unequivocal act of repudiation had to be made known to unmeritorious.
the Torbela siblings as the cestuis que trust and must be
proven by clear and conclusive evidence. No petition for cancellation has been filed and no
hearing has been conducted herein to determine the
The Court held that that Dr. Rosario repudiated the validity or merit of the adverse claim of the Torbela
express trust when he acquired another loan from PNB siblings. Entry No. 520469 cancelled the adverse claim
and constituted a second mortgage on Lot No. 356-A of the Torbela siblings, annotated as Entry Nos. 274471-
which, unlike the first mortgage to DBP in 1965, was 774472, upon the presentation by Dr. Rosario of a mere
without the knowledge and/or consent of the Torbela Cancellation and Discharge of Mortgage.
siblings.
There were several things amiss in Entry No. 520469
The Torbela siblings can only be charged with which should have already aroused suspicions in Banco
knowledge of the mortgage of Lot No. 356-A to PNB on Filipino, and compelled the bank to look beyond TCT No.
March 6, 1981 when the amended loan and mortgage 52751 and inquire into Dr. Rosario's title. First, Entry No.
agreement was registered as Entry No. 520099. Entry 520469 does not mention any court order as basis for
No. 520099 is constructive notice to the whole world the cancellation of the adverse claim. Second, the
that Lot No. 356-A was mortgaged by Dr. Rosario to adverse claim was not a mortgage which could be
PNB as security for a loan. cancelled with Dr. Rosario's Cancellation and Discharge
of Mortgage. And third, the adverse claim was against
From March 6, 1981, when the amended loan and Dr. Rosario, yet it was cancelled based on a document
mortgage agreement was registered on TCT No. 52751, also executed by Dr. Rosario.
to February 13, 1986, when the Torbela siblings
instituted before the RTC Civil Case No. U-4359 against While the defective cancellation of Entry Nos. 274471-
the spouses Rosario, only about five years had passed. 274472 by Entry No. 520469 might not be evident to a
The Torbela siblings were able to institute Civil Case No. private individual, the same should have been apparent
U-4359 well before the lapse of the 10-year prescriptive to Banco Filipino. Banco Filipino is not an ordinary
period for the enforcement of their express trust with mortgagee, but is a mortgagee-bank, whose business is
Dr. Rosario. impressed with public interest.
Civil Case No. U-4359 is likewise not barred by laches. Banco Filipino cannot be deemed a mortgagee in good
The Torbela siblings instituted Civil Case No. U-4359 five faith, much less a purchaser in good faith at the
years after Dr. Rosario's repudiation of the express trust, foreclosure sale of Lot No. 356-A. Hence, the right of the
still within the 10-year prescriptive period for Torbela siblings over Lot No. 356-A is superior over that
enforcement of such trusts. This does not constitute an of Banco Filipino; and as the true owners of Lot No. 356-
unreasonable delay in asserting one's right. A delay A, the Torbela siblings are entitled to a reconveyance of
within the prescriptive period is sanctioned by law and is said property even from Banco Filipino.
not considered to be a delay that would bar relief.
Laches apply only in the absence of a statutory 4. W/N rules on accession shall govern the
prescriptive period. improvements on Lot No. 356-A and the rents
thereof? YES (note: not related to Special
3. W/N Banco Filipino was a mortgagee in good Proceedings topic)
faith? NO (note: not related to Special
Proceedings topic)
The accessory follows the principal. The right of several cases against Dr. Rosario and his spouse,
accession is recognized under Article 440 of the Civil Duque-Rosario, as well as Banco Filipino, which had
Code which states that "[t]he ownership of property lasted for more than 25 years. Consequently, the
gives the right by accession to everything which is Torbela siblings are entitled to an award of attorney's
produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached fees and the amount of P100,000.00 may be considered
thereto, either naturally or artificially." rational, fair, and reasonable.
When it comes to the improvements on Lot No. 356-A, 6. W/N Banco Filipino is entitled to a writ of
both the Torbela siblings (as landowners) and Dr. possession for the other lots mortgaged by Dr.
Rosario (as builder) are deemed in bad faith. The Rosario? YES (note: not related to Special
Torbela siblings were aware of the construction of a Proceedings topic)
building by Dr. Rosario on Lot No. 356-A, while Dr.
Rosario proceeded with the said construction despite his Since the Court has already granted herein the
knowledge that Lot No. 356-A belonged to the Torbela reconveyance of Lot No. 356-A from Banco Filipino to
siblings. the Torbela siblings, the writ of possession now pertains
only to Lot No. 5-F-8-C-2-B-2-A (the other property of
This case then must be remanded to the RTC for the Dr. Rosario that was validly mortgaged to Banco
determination of matters necessary for the proper Filipino).
application of Article 448, in relation to Article 546, of
the Civil Code. Such matters include the option that the To recall, the Court of Appeals affirmed the issuance by
Torbela siblings will choose; the amount of indemnity the RTC of a writ of possession in favor of Banco
that they will pay if they decide to appropriate the Filipino. Dr. Rosario no longer appealed from said
improvements on Lot No. 356-A; the value of Lot No. judgment of the appellate court. Already legally
356-A if they prefer to sell it to Dr. Rosario; or the separated from Dr. Rosario, Duque-Rosario alone
reasonable rent if they opt to sell Lot No. 356-A to Dr. challenges the writ of possession before this Court
Rosario but the value of the land is considerably more through her Petition in G.R. No. 140553.
than the improvements.
The following facts are undisputed: Banco Filipino
5. W/N Dr. Rosario is liable for damages to extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage constituted on
the Torbela siblings? YES (note: not related to Lot No. 5-F-8-C-2-B-2-A and the two other properties
Special Proceedings topic) after Dr. Rosario defaulted on the payment of his loan;
Banco Filipino was the highest bidder for all three
Indeed, Dr. Rosario's deceit and bad faith is evident properties at the foreclosure sale on April 2, 1987; the
when, being fully aware that he only held Lot No. 356-A Certificate of Sale dated April 2, 1987 was registered in
in trust for the Torbela siblings, he mortgaged said April 1987; and based on the Certificate of Final Sale
property to PNB and Banco Filipino absent the consent dated May 24, 1988 and Affidavit of Consolidation dated
of the Torbela siblings, and caused the irregular May 25, 1988, the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No.
cancellation of the Torbela siblings' adverse claim on 104189 and issued TCT No. 165812 in the name of
TCT No. 52751. Irrefragably, Dr. Rosario's betrayal had Banco Filipino for Lot No. 5-F-8-C-2-B-2-A on June 7,
caused the Torbela siblings (which included Dr. Rosario's 1988.
own mother, Eufrosina Torbela Rosario) mental anguish,
serious anxiety, and wounded feelings. Resultantly, the The Court has consistently ruled that the one-year
award of moral damages is justified, but the amount redemption period should be counted not from the date
thereof is reduced to P200,000.00. of foreclosure sale, but from the time the certificate of
sale is registered with the Registry of Deeds.
In addition to the moral damages, exemplary damages
may also be imposed given that Dr. Rosario's wrongful Even if the Court concedes that the Certificate of Sale
acts were accompanied by bad faith. However, judicial was annotated on TCT No. 104189 on the later date,
discretion granted to the courts in the assessment of April 15, 1987, the one-year redemption period already
damages must always be exercised with balanced expired on April 14, 1988. The Certificate of Final Sale
restraint and measured objectivity. The circumstances of and Affidavit of Consolidation were executed more than
the case call for a reduction of the award of exemplary a month thereafter, on May 24, 1988 and May 25, 1988,
damages to P100,000.00. respectively, and were clearly not premature.
As regards attorney's fees, they may be awarded when Duque-Rosario also cannot bar the issuance of the writ
the defendant's act or omission has compelled the of possession over Lot No. 5-F-8-C-2-B-2-A in favor of
plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur Banco Filipino by invoking the pendency of Civil Case
expenses to protect his interest. Because of Dr. Rosario's No. U-4359, the Torbela siblings' action for recovery of
acts, the Torbela siblings were constrained to institute ownership and possession and damages, which
supposedly tolled the period for redemption of the “compulsory” counterclaim for the partition of the other
foreclosed properties. The Court simply points out to 12 parcels of land.
Duque-Rosario that Civil Case No. U-4359 involved Lot
No. 356-A only, and the legal consequences of the Galicano et al then filed a motion for the court to render
institution, pendency, and resolution of Civil Case No. U- judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the
4359 apply to Lot No. 356-A alone.
motion. The RTC ruled that the admission of Reillo et al
that there are 4 other heirs is proof that the extrajudicial
The right of the purchaser to the possession of the
foreclosed property becomes absolute upon the settlement is void because the other heirs were
expiration of the redemption period. The basis of this excluded. The RTC also ruled that Reillo et al’s
right to possession is the purchaser's ownership of the counterclaim is not compulsory but rather it is a
property. After the consolidation of title in the buyer's permissive counterclaim. As such, Reillo et al should
name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, the writ of have paid docket fees therefor but they failed to do so
possession becomes a matter of right and its issuance to
hence their counterclaim is dismissed. The RTC then
a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a
ministerial function. ordered the heirs to partition the estate according to the
laws of intestate succession. On appeal, the Court of
17. REILLO vs. SAN JOSE, Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC.
G.R. No. 166393, 18 JUNE 2009
Reillo et al appealed the decision of the CA on the
Facts: ground that the judgment on the pleading is void; that it
Quiterio San Jose and Antonina Espiritu Santo are is the RTC’s fault why they failed to pay the docket fees
husband and wife. Both died intestate in 1970 and 1976 for its failure to direct them; and that the order for
respectively. They have five children, to wit: Virginia, partition is void because it does not come with an order
Virgilio, Galicano, Victoria, and Catalina. of publication pursuant to Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.
Richard was remarried to Candelaria Guersey- Petitioner filed a motion for review on certiorari
Dalaygon (Respondent), with whom he had two children under Rule 45 to the SC.
Kimberly and Kevin. Then Audrey’s will was also
Petitioner’s arguments:
admitted to probate by the CFI of Rizal in 1982 in Spec.
Pro. Case No. 9625. He acted in good faith in performing his duties as
ancillary administrator and he was not aware of the
Then, Richard died sometime in 1984, leaving a
relevant laws of Maryland.
will and he left his entire estate to Candelaria, save for
his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. Respondent’s arguments:
shares, which he left to Kyle. Then, Richard’s will was
submitted for probate before court in Maryland, USA and He argued that breach of petitioner’s fiduciary duty is
in RTC docketed as S. P. Case No. M-888. extrinsic fraud. According to respondent, petitioner was
duty bound to follow the express terms of Aubrey’s will,
In 1987, petitioner filed a motion to declare and his denial of knowledge of Maryland’ laws cannot
Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey and a project of stand because he is a senior partner in a prestigious law
partition of Audrey’s estate in S.P. Case No. 9625. firm and it was his duty to know the relevant laws.
Petitioner also filed a project of partition of Audrey’s
ISSUE: Philippines and Administration of Estate Thereunder,
states:
WON the Petitioner breached his fiduciary duty
when he disregarded the laws of the State of Maryland SEC. 4. Estate, how administered. — When a
in the distribution of Audrey’s will (YES) will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters
testamentary, or letters of administration with the will
RULING: annexed, and such letters testamentary or of
administration, shall extend to all the estate of the
YES. The Court DENIED the petition and the
testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after the
Petitioner is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in
payment of just debts and expenses of
the performance of his duties as an official of the court.
administration, shall be disposed of according to
Petitioner’s failure to manage the distribution of Audrey’s
such will, so far as such will may operate upon it;
estate according to the terms of her will and as dictated
and the residue, if any, shall be disposed of as is
by applicable law amounted to extrinsic fraud.
provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines
Petitioner is the ancillary administrator of belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another
Audrey's estate. As such, he occupies a position of the state or country. (Emphasis supplied)
highest trust and confidence, and he is required to
While foreign laws do not prove themselves in
exercise reasonable diligence and act in entire good faith
our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take
in the performance of that trust. Although he is not a
judicial notice of them; however, petitioner, as ancillary
guarantor or insurer of the safety of the estate nor is he
administrator of Audrey's estate, was duty-bound to
expected to be infallible, yet the same degree of
introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of
prudence, care and judgment which a person of a fair
Maryland.
average capacity and ability exercises in similar
transactions of his own, serves as the standard by which How can petitioner honestly presume that Philippine
his conduct is to be judged. laws apply when as early as the reprobate of Audrey's
will before the trial court in 1982, it was already brought
Being a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of to fore that Audrey was a U.S. citizen, domiciled in the
Audrey's will, especially with regard as to who are her State of Maryland. As asserted by respondent, petitioner
heirs, is governed by her national law, i.e., the law of is a senior partner in a prestigious law firm, with a "big
the State of Maryland, as provided in Article 16 of the legal staff and a large library." He had all the legal
resources to determine the applicable law. It was
Civil Code, to wit:
incumbent upon him to exercise his functions as
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal ancillary administrator with reasonable diligence, and to
discharge the trust reposed on him faithfully.
property is subject to the law of the country where it is
Unfortunately, petitioner failed to perform his fiduciary
situated. duties.