SpecPro Consolidated Cases.docx

8/19/2019 SpecPro Consolidated Cases.docx

1/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3C#1 Neri

G.R. No. 192828 November 28, 2011

RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, vs.

HON. JANSEN R. RODRIGUE, !" #!$ %&'&%!() &$ Pre$!*!"+ J*+e o- (#e Re+!o"& Tr!&

Cor( o- M&"!&, /r&"%# , JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND UCINA

SANTOS, $b$(!((e* b) #er $o", EDUARDO S. /AAJADIA, Respondents.

ACTS - sometime between November !, "" and ecember 3, "", ! t$e respondents %led a

Complaint& 'or 3Disinheritance, Declaration of Nullity of Agreement and Waiver,

Adavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale, ransfer !erti"cates of

itle #ith $rayer for %the& 'ssuance of %a& em(orary )estraining *rder and %a& Writ of

$reliminary 'n+unction,3 Branc$ ( o' t$e Regional )rial Co*rt o' +anila R)C. against t$e

petitioners Ramon C$ing and Strong$old ns*rance Compan/, 0lobal B*siness Ban, nc.

'ormerl/ P$ilBan, 2lena )i* el Pilar, sia tlantic Reso*rces 4ent*res, nc., Registers o' eeds

o' +anila and +alabon, and all persons claiming rig$ts or titles 'rom Ramon C$ing Ramon and

$is s*ccessors-in-interest.

n t$e Complaint, t$e respondents alleged t$e 'ollowing as ca*ses o' action5

!r$( C&$e o- A%(!o". )$at repondents are t$e $eirs o' Lim San,ntonio. Respondents

6osep$ C$eng 6osep$ and 6aime C$eng 6aime are allegedl/ t$e c$ildren o' ntonio wit$

$is common-law wi'e, respondent +ercedes gne +ercedes. Respondent L*cina Santos

L*cina claimed t$at s$e was also a common-law wi'e o' ntonio.

)$e respondents averred t$at Ramon misrepresented $imsel' as ntonio7s and L*cina7s

son w$en in tr*t$ and in 'act, $e was adopted and $is birt$ certi%cate was merel/

sim*lated.

Se%o"* C&$e o- A%(!o". 8n *g*st &, 199&, prior to t$e concl*sion o' t$e police

investigations tagging Ramon as t$e prime s*spect in t$e m*rder o' ntonio, t$e 'ormer

m&*e &" !"ve"(or) o- (#e &((er4$ e$(&(e. Ramon misrepresented t$at t$ere were onl/

si: real estate properties le't b/ ntonio. )$e respondents alleged t$at Ramon $ad illegall/

trans'erred to $is name t$e titles to t$e said properties. ;*rt$er, t$ere are two ot$er

parcels o' land, cas$ and


2/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Cbaseless. ;*rt$er, L*cina7s s$ares in Po ?ing $ad also banis$ed into t$in air t$ro*g$

Ramon7s mac$inations.

!-(# C&$e o- A%(!o". 8n 8ctober 9, 199&, Ramon e:ec*ted an davit o' 2:tra-

6*dicial Settlement o' 2state1" ad,""","""."" originall/ iss*ed b/ P$ilBan to ntonio. )$e respondents

pra/ed t$at t$e/ be declared as t$e rig$t'*l owners o' t$e CPP and t$at it be immediatel/

released to t$em. lternativel/, t$e respondents pra/ed 'or t$e iss*ance o' a $old order relative

to t$e CPP to preserve it d*ring t$e pendenc/ o' t$e case.

8n pril , ""!, t$e petitioners %led t$eir Consolidated nswer wit$ Co*nterclaim.1!

8n 8ctober (, ""!, t$e R)C iss*ed an 8rder 1& admitting t$e respondents7 mended Complaint.

)$e R)C stressed t$at +etroban $ad alread/ %led +ani'estations admitting t$at as s*ccessor-in-interest o' 0lobal Ban, it now possesses c*stod/ o' ntonio7s deposits. +etroban e:pressed

willingness to abide b/ an/ co*rt order as regards t$e disposition o' ntonio7s deposits. )$e

petitioners7 +otion 'or Reconsideration %led to assail t$e a'orecited 8rder was denied b/ t$e R)C

on +a/ 3, ""&.

8n +a/ 9, ""&, t$e petitioners %led t$eir Consolidated nswer wit$ Co*nterclaim to t$e

respondents7 mended Complaint.

8n 6an*ar/ 1(, ""D, t$e petitioners %led a +otion to ismiss1( t$e respondents7 mended

Complaint on t$e alleged gro*nd o' t$e R)C7s lac o'


3/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3C8n +arc$ 1!, ""D, t$e R)C iss*ed an 8rder19 den/ing t$e petitioners7 +otion to ismiss on

gro*nds5

n t$e case at bar, an e:amination o' t$e Complaint wo*ld disclose t$at t$e action delves mainl/

on t$e *estion o' owners$ip o' t$e properties described in t$e Complaint w$ic$ can be properl/

settled in an ordinar/ civil action. nd as pointed o*t b/ t$e de'endants, t$e action sees to

declare t$e n*llit/ o' t$e greement, ?aiver, davit o' 2:tra-6*dicial Settlement, eed o'

bsol*te Sale, )rans'er Certi%cates o' )itle, w$ic$ were all allegedl/ e:ec*ted b/ de'endant

Ramon C$ing to de'ra*d t$e plaintiEs. T#e re!e- o- e$(&b!$#!"+ (#e $(&($ o- (#e '&!"(!6$

7#!%# %o* #&ve (r&"$&(e* (#!$ &%(!o" !"(o & $'e%!& 'ro%ee*!"+ 7&$ "o7#ere $(&(e*

!" (#e Ame"*e* Com'&!"(. W!(# re+&r* (o (#e 'r&)er (o *e%&re (#e '&!"(!6$ &$ (#e

r!+#(- o7"er$ o- (#e CPPA &"* (#&( (#e $&me be !mme*!&(e) ree&$e* (o (#em, !"

!($e- 'o$e$ &" !$$e o- o7"er$#!' 7#!%# m$( be 'rove* b) '&!"(!6$ b) $b$(&"(!&

ev!*e"%e. nd as emp$asiFed b/ t$e plaintiEs, t$e mended Complaint was intended to

implead +etroban as a co-de'endant.

s regards t$e iss*e o' disin$eritance, t$e co*rt notes t$at d*ring t$e Pre-trial o' t$is case, one o'

t$e iss*es raised b/ t$e de'endants Ramon C$ing and Po ?ing Properties is5 ?$et$er or nott$ere can be disin$eritance in intestate s*ccessionG ?$et$er or not de'endant Ramon C$ing can

be legall/ disin$erited 'rom t$e estate o' $is 'at$erG )o t$e mind o' t$e Co*rt, t$e iss*e o'

disin$eritance, w$ic$ is one o' t$e ca*ses o' action in t$e Complaint, can be '*ll/ settled a'ter a

trial on t$e merits. nd at t$is stage, it $as not been s*cientl/ establis$ed w$et$er or not t$ere

is a will."

)$e above 8rder, and a s*bse*ent 8rder dated +a/ 1&, ""D den/ing t$e petitioners7 +otion

'or Reconsideration, became t$e s*b, ""9, t$e C rendered t$e now assailed ecision1 den/ing t$e petition

'or certiorari on gro*nds5

8*r in-dept$ assessment o' t$e condensed allegations s*pporting t$e ca*ses o' action o' t$e

amended complaint ind*ced *s to in'er t$at "o(#!"+ !" (#e $&!* %om'&!"( $#o7$ (#&( (#e

&%(!o" o- (#e 'r!v&(e re$'o"*e"($ $#o* be (#re$#e* o( !" & $'e%!& 'ro%ee*!"+, !(

&''e&r!"+ (#&( (#e!r &e+&(!o"$ 7ere $b$(&"(!&) -or (#e e"-or%eme"( o- (#e!r r!+#($

&+&!"$( (#e &e+e* -r&*e"( &%($ %omm!((e* b) (#e 'e(!(!o"er R&mo" C#!"+. T#e'r!v&(e re$'o"*e"($ &$o !"$(!((e* (#e $&!* &me"*e* %om'&!"( !" or*er (o 'ro(e%(

(#em -rom (#e %o"$e:e"%e o- (#e -r&*e"( &%($ o- R&mo" C#!"+ b) $ee;!"+ (o

*!$:&!-) R&mo" C#!"+ -rom !"#er!(!"+ -rom A"(o"!o C#!"+ &$ 7e &$ (o e"


4/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3C*pon t$e petitioners de'endants. =ence, we 'oc*s o*r resol*tion on t$e iss*e o' ",9 bot$ involving t$e contending

parties in t$e instant petition were %led b/ t$e petitioners and are c*rrentl/ pending be'ore t$is

Co*rt. ;*rt$er, in Mendoza v. Hon. Teh,3" t$e SC declared t$at w$et$er a partic*lar matter s$o*ld

be resolved b/ t$e R)C in t$e e:ercise o' its general


5/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3CInder rticle 91& o' t$e NCC, disin$eritance can be eEected onl/ t$ro*g$ a will w$erein t$e legal

ca*se t$ere'or s$all be speci%ed. )$is Co*rt agrees wit$ t$e R)C and t$e C t$at w$ile t$e

respondents in t$eir Complaint and mended Complaint so*g$t t$e disin$eritance o' Ramon, no

will or an/ instr*ment s*pposedl/ eEecting t$e disposition o' ntonio7s estate was ever

mentioned. =ence, despite t$e pra/er 'or Ramon7s disin$eritance, Civil Case No. "-1"!!1 does

not partae o' t$e nat*re o' a special proceeding and does not call 'or t$e probate co*rt7s

e:ercise o' its limited


6/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3C

HED@

Inder Section , R*le D! o' t$e R*les o' Co*rt, t$e propert/ to be administered and li*idated intestate or intestate proceedings o' t$e deceased spo*se is, not onl/ t$at part o' t$e con


7/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3C8n "> 6*l/ 199!, t$e Regional )rial Co*rt acting on petitioner7s motion iss*ed an order directingR8 to reinstate t$e annotation o' lispendens in case said annotation $ad alread/ been deletedandKor cancelled.;*rt$er more sic, said properties covered b/ )C) Nos. &13>9>, 3&!13,3&!& and 3&3D b/ virt*e o' t$e petitioner are incl*ded in t$e instant petition.

8n "> September 199!, t$e probate co*rt appointed R*%na Lim as special administrator11 and+ig*el Lim and Law/er onald Lee, as co-special administrators o' t$e estate o' Pastor . Lim,a'ter w$ic$ letters o' administration were accordingl/ iss*ed.

n an order1 dated 1 September 199!, t$e probate co*rt denied anew private respondents7motion 'or e:cl*sion, in t$is wise5

)$e iss*e precisel/ raised b/ t$e petitioner in $er petition is w$et$er t$e corporations aret$e mere alter egos or instr*mentalities o' Pastor Lim, 8t$erwise sic stated, t$e iss*einvolves t$e piercing o' t$e corporate veil, a matter t$at is clearl/ wit$in t$e *p tot$eir receipt o' t$is co*rt order.

S8 8R2R2.

Private respondent %led a special civil action 'or certiorari1>, wit$ an *rgent pra/er 'or arestraining order or writ o' preliminar/ in! o' t$e R*les o' Co*rt, $erein petitioner R*%naL*/Lim now comes be'ore *s wit$ a lone assignment o' error1&5

)$e respondent Co*rt o' ppeals erred in reversing t$e orders o' t$e lower co*rt w$ic$merel/ allowed t$e preliminar/ or provisional incl*sion o' t$e private respondents as parto' t$e estate o' t$e late deceased sic Pastor . Lim wit$ t$e respondent Co*rt o' ppeals

D

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt16


8/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Carrogating *nto itsel' t$e power to repeal, to disobe/ or to ignore t$e clear and e:plicitprovisions o' R*les (1,(3,(> and (D o' t$e R*les o' Co*rt and t$ereb/ preventing t$epetitioner, 'rom per'orming $er d*t/ as special administrator o' t$e estate as e:pressl/provided in t$e said R*les.

Petitioner7s contentions tread on perilo*s gro*nds.

n t$e instant petition 'or review, petitioner pra/s t$at we arm t$e orders iss*ed b/ t$e probateco*rt w$ic$ were s*bse*entl/ set aside b/ t$e Co*rt o' ppeals.

et, be'ore we delve into t$e merits o' t$e case, a review o' t$e r*les on


9/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Cw$ic$ *nder t$e law is endowed wit$ incontestabilit/ *ntil a'ter it $as been set aside in t$emanner indicated in t$e law itsel', w$ic$ o' co*rse, does not incl*de, bringing *p t$ematter as a mere incident in special proceedings 'or t$e settlement o' t$e estate o' deceased persons. . . .

. . . . n regard to s*c$ incident o' incl*sion or e:cl*sion, ?e $old t$at i' a propert/ coveredb/ )orrens title is involved, t$e pres*mptive concl*siveness o' s*c$ title s$o*ld be givend*e weig$t, and in t$e absence o' strong compelling evidence to t$e contrar/, t$e $oldert$ereo' s$o*ld be considered as t$e owner o' t$e propert/ in controvers/ *ntil $is title isn*lli%ed or modi%ed in an appropriate ordinar/ action, partic*larl/, w$en as in t$e case atbar, possession o' t$e propert/ itsel' is in t$e persons named in t$e title. . . .

per*sal o' t$e records wo*ld reveal t$at no strong compelling evidence was ever presented b/petitioner to bolster $er bare assertions as to t$e title o' t$e deceased Pastor . Lim over t$eproperties. 2ven so, P.. 1!9, ot$erwise nown as, )$e Propert/ Registration ecree,proscribes collateral attac on )orrens )itle, $ence5

Sec. >(. Certifcate not subject to collateral attac


10/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Cp*blic convenience is de'eatedH w$ere a wrong is so*g$t to be


11/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3CHe*@ 4en*e was properl/ laid. Inder Section 1, R*le D3 o' t$e R*les o' Co*rt, t$e petition 'or

letters o' administration o' t$e estate s$o*ld be %led in t$e R)C o' t$e province in w$ic$ $e

resides at t$e time o' $is deat$. n t$e case o' 0arcia ;*le v. C, we laid down t$e r*le t$at 'or

determining ven*e, t$e residence o' t$e decedent is determining. Residence 'or settlement o'

estate p*rposes means $is personal, act*al or p$/sical $abitation, or act*al residence o' place o'

abode, w$ic$ ma/ not necessaril/ be $is legal residence or domicile provided $e resides t$erein

wit$ contin*it/ and consistenc/. t is possible t$at a person ma/ $ave $is residence in one place

and domicile in anot$er. )$e divorce decree obtained b/ +err/ Lee Corwin, w$ic$ absol*tel/

allowed ;elicisimo to remarr/ wo*ld $ave vested ;elicidad wit$ t$e legal personalit/ to %le t$e

present petition as t$e s*rviving spo*se. =owever, t$e respondent was not able to provide

s*cient doc*mentation to prove t$e decree o' divorce obtained in =awaii. 2ven ass*ming t$at

;elicisimo was not capacitated to marr/ respondent in 19D>, nevert$eless, we %nd t$at t$e latter

$as t$e legal personalit/ to %le t$e s*b3 da/s a'ter 0rimmJs w$ic$ was %led b/ 2t$el at Br " o' C; +anila,named 2t$el as special administratri:.

+a:ine %led an opposition and motion to dismiss t$e intestate proceeding on t$e gro*ndo' t$e pendenc/ o' Ita$ o' a proceeding 'or t$e probate o' 0rimmJs will. S$e also moved t$at s$ebe appointed special administrator, s$e s*bmitted to t$e co*rt a cop/ o' 0rimmJs will disposingo' $is P$ilippine estate.

)$e intestate co*rt in its order t$ro*g$ a new law/er, appointed t$em


12/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Cappointed e:ec*tri: and t$at 2t$el and 6*anita +orris be ordered to acco*nt 'or t$e propertiesreceived b/ t$em and to ret*rn t$e same to +a:ine.

2t$el %led a motion to dismiss t$e petition. 6*dge Leonidas denied it 'or lac o' merit in $isorder o' 8ctober D, 19(".

ISSUE@?$et$er or not t$e petition 'or allowance o' wills and to ann*l a partition approved in an

intestate proceeding b/ C; Br. " be entertained b/ Branc$ 3( a'ter a probate in t$e Ita$district co*rtG

HED@

)$e co*rt r*led t$at respondent ?,opposing probate o' t$e will and assailing t$e


13/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Co' Ceb* Cit/ w$en $e died, t$e intestate proceedings in Ceb* Cit/ s$o*ld prevail over t$eprobate proceedings in M*eFon Cit/, beca*se as stated above t$e probate o' t$e will s$o*ld taeprecedence, b*t t$at t$e probate proceedings s$o*ld be %led in t$e Ceb* Cit/ Co*rt o' ;irstnstance. ' t$e last proposition is t$e desire o' t$e oppositors as *nderstood b/ t$is Co*rt, t$atco*ld not also be entertained as proper beca*se paragrap$ 1 o' t$e petition 'or t$e probate o' t$e will indicates t$at ;on Mariano 2esus Cuenco at the ti)e o his death was a resident o @uezon City at >- /i y Margal. nne: Last ?ill and )estament o' +ariano 6es*s C*enco o' t$epetition 'or probate o' t$e will s$ows t$at t$e decedent at t$e time w$en $e e:ec*ted $is Last?ill clearl/ stated t$at $e is a resident o' &9 Pi / +argal, Sta. +esa =eig$ts, M*eFon Cit/, andalso o' t$e Cit/ o' Ceb*. =e made t$e 'ormer as $is %rst c$oice and t$e latter as $is secondc$oice o' residence. ' a part/ $as two residences, t$e one will be deemed or pres*med to $isdomicile w$ic$ $e $imsel' selects or considers to be $is $ome or w$ic$ appears to be t$e centero' $is aEairs. )$e petitioner, in t$*s %ling t$e instant petition be'ore t$is Co*rt, 'ollows t$e %rstc$oice o' residence o' t$e decedent and once t$is co*rt ac*ires -R to bar t$e RiFal co*rt 'rom proceeding wit$ case No. M-D(9(.8n 1 November 19&>, t$e Co*rt o' ppeals rendered a decision in 'avor o' respondentspetitioners t$erein and against t$e $erein petitioner, $olding t$at5Section 1, R*le D3, w$ic$ %:es t$e ven*e in proceedings 'or t$e settlement o' t$e estate o' adeceased person, covers both testate and intestate proceedings. Sp. Proc. >33-R o' t$e Ceb*C; $aving been %led a$ead, it is t$at co*rt w$ose 33-R, it 'ollows t$at t$e said co*rt m*st e:ercise , 6*dge mador 0omeF o' t$e Ceb* C;, acting in Sp. Proc. >33-R, stated t$at t$e petition 'or appointment o' special

13


14/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Cadministrator was not /et read/ 'or t$e consideration o' t$e Co*rt toda/. t wo*ld be premat*re'or t$is Co*rt to act t$ereon, it not $aving /et reg*larl/ ac*ired


15/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Ct cannot be denied t$at a special proceeding intended to eEect t$e distrib*tion o' t$e estate o' adeceased person, w$et$er in accordance wit$ t$e law on intestate s*ccession or in accordancewit$ $is will, is a probate matter or a proceeding 'or t$e settlement o' $is estate. It is e!ually true however that in accordance with settled jurisprudence in this jurisdiction testate

proceedings or the settle)ent o the estate o a deceased person ta 2:$. &-,

were allotted to Ra'ael Re/es, Sr., one o' 0avino7s c$ildren. Per testimon/ o' 6*an Poblete,t$e c$ildren t$erea'ter sec*red ta: declarations 'or t$eir respective s$ares.

• n 19>1, or abo*t twent/ " /ears a'ter t$e deat$ o' 0avino, t$e original certi%cate o'

title 'or t$e w$ole propert/-8C) No. !!-was iss*ed. t was, $owever, ept b/ 6*an Poblete,son-inlaw o' +arcelo Re/es, w$o was b/ t$en alread/ deceased. )$e $eirs o' 0avino werenot aware o' t$is 'act.

• 8n 3 ecember 19>3, Ra'ael Re/es, Sr. sold a parcel o' land wit$ an area o' 3,>31 s*are

meters, more or less, to private respondent almacio0ardiola 2:$. !. ccording to t$evendee, t$is parcel corresponds to Lot No.1--1> o' t$e s*bdivision plan a'orestated. )$e

1!


16/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Cdeed o' sale, $owever, did not speci%call/ mention Lot No. --1>. )$e vendee immediatel/too possession o' t$e propert/ and started pa/ing t$e land ta:es t$erein.

• n 19&D, t$e s*rviving $eirs gave eEect to t$e s*bdivision plan created on 193&. )$e/

'ormall/ partitioned t$e propert/. )$ere'ore, t$e $eirs received t$eir s$are o' t$is land.ncl*ding Ra'ael Re/es, 6r. Son o' Ra'ael Sr. )C)s were iss*ed to $im representing t$e landw$ic$ s$o*ld $ave been received b/ $is 'at$er.

• Now, t$e $eirs o' Ra'ael 6r. s*ed 0ardiola, sa/ing t$at t$e/ are t$e tr*e owners o' t$e land,

as s$own b/ t$e torrens title over t$e land.• 0ardiolaJs de'ense was t$at $e bo*g$t t$e land 'rom Ra'ael Sr. and t$at Ra'ael 6r. co*ld not

$ave in$erited t$is land 'or it was disposed o' b/ $is 'at$er wa/ be'ore $e in$erited it.

• )$e trial co*rt r*led in 'avor o' Ra'ael 6r.Js $eirs. Stating t$at t$ere was no evidence t$at

t$e 0avinoJs c$ildren $ad a written partition agreement. C reversed.

I$$e@

?$et$er or not t$e C correct in reversing t$e trial co*rtG

He*@

No.

)$e Co*rt o' ppeals correctl/ $eld t$at t$e partition made b/ t$e c$ildren o' 0avino Re/es in193&, alt$o*g$ oral, was valid and binding. )$ere is no law t$at re*ires partition among $eirs tobe in writing to be valid.> n =ernandeF vs. ndal, s*pra, t$is Co*rt, interpreting Section 1 o' R*le D> o' t$e R*les o' Co*rt, $eld t$at t$e re*irement t$at a partition be p*t in a p*blicdoc*ment and registered $as 'or its p*rpose t$e protection o' creditors and at t$e same time t$eprotection o' t$e $eirs t$emselves against tard/ claims. )$e ob


17/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Cto Lot No. 1-1>-, t$e mere e:ec*tion o' t$e settlement did not improve $is condition, and t$es*bse*ent registration o' t$e deed did not create an/ rig$t or vest an/ title over t$e propert/ in'avor o' t$e petitioners as $eirs o' Ra'ael Re/es, 6r, )$e latter cannot give t$em w$at $e never$ad be'ore. Nemo dare potest *od non $abet.

)$ere is one more point t$at s$o*ld be stressed $ere. Petitioners7 immediate predecessor-in-interest, Ra'ael Re/es, 6r., never too an/ action against private respondents 'rom t$e time $is'at$er sold t$e lot to t$e latter. Neit$er did petitioners bring an/ action to recover 'rom private

respondents t$e owner. s$ip and possession o' t$e lot 'rom t$e time Ra'ael Re/es, 6r. died. scategoricall/ admitted b/ petitioners in t$eir complaint and amended complaint, it was onl/ in orabo*t September 19&9 w$en, a'ter t$e deliver/ o' )C) No. D!D b/ Candido =ebron to t$em,t$at t$e/ de%nitel/ discovered t$at t$e/ were t$e owners o' t$e propert/ in *estion. nd /et,despite '*ll nowledge t$at private respondents were in act*al p$/sical possession o' t$epropert/, it was onl/ abo*t t$irteen and one$al' 13 1K /ears later t$at t$e/ decided to %le anaction 'or recover/ o' possession. s stated earlier, t$e original complaint was %led in t$e trialco*rt on 1> +arc$ 19(3. )$ere was t$en absol*tel/ no basis 'or t$e trial co*rt to place t$eb*rden on private respondents to bring an action 'or reconve/ance wit$in 'o*r > /ears 'romt$eir discover/ o' t$e iss*ance o' t$e trans'er certi%cate o' title in t$e name o' Ra'ael Re/es, 6r.

#1" sadil

A)'A .DA DE )E/ES .S !A

ACTS@*ring $is li'etime, one 0avino Re/es owned a parcel o' land. =e so*g$t to bring said land

*nder t$e operation o' t$e )orrens s/stem o' registration o' propert/. In'ort*natel/, $e died in191 wit$o*t t$e title $aving been iss*ed $im. )$e application was prosec*ted b/ $is son,+arcelo Re/es, w$o was t$e administrator o' $is propert/.

n 193& t$e above propert/ was s*rve/ed and s*bdivided b/ 0avinoJs $eirs. n t$es*bdivision plan, eac$ res*ltant lot was earmared, indicated 'or and assigned to a speci%c $eir.t appears t$erein t$at two lots, one o' w$ic$ is Lot BNo. 1-1>, were allotted to Ra'ael Re/es, Sr.,one o' 0avinosJs c$ildren. Per testimon/ o' 6*an Poblete, t$e c$ildren t$erea'ter sec*red ta:

declarations 'or t$eir respective s$ares.8n 1 8ctober 19&D, w$en t$e $eirs o' 0avino Re/es e:ec*ted a eed o' 2:tra


18/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Cv$.

GORIA A. ARGAS, AURORA ARGAS, RAMON ARGAS, MARITES ARGAS,

EDEINA ARGAS AND GEMMA ARGAS, re$'o"*e"($.

ACTS@

parcel o' residential land wit$ an area o' 99 s*are meters located in San 6*an,

4irac,Catand*anes was le't be$ind b/ t$e late Pa*lina 4argas. 8n ;ebr*ar/ >, 199>, anotariFed

2:tra 6*dicial Settlement mong =eirs was e:ec*ted b/ and among Pa*lina4argas $eirs, namel/

2ster 4argas, 4isitacion 4argas, 6*an 4argas, Uenaida 4. +atienFo,Rosario 4. ;orteFa, ndres

4argas, 0loria 4argas, ntonina 4argas and ;lorentino 4argas,partitioning and ad is an e: parte proceeding. )$e r*le plainl/ states, t$at personsw$o do not participate or $ad no notice o' an e:tra


19/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Ct$e C;, a'ter %ling a petition to $ave $ersel' appointed administrator, and a'ter %ling

anopposition t$ereto, 0loria V;ransisco, assisted b/ t$eir corresponding co*nsels, agreed to$ave

0loria appointed as administratri: o' t$e estateVletters o' administration o' t$e estate o't$e late

2varistoC*/os were iss*ed in 'avor o' +rs. 0loria C*/os)alian a'ter posting a nominalbond o' Pl ,

""".88. )$e Cler o' Co*rt, tt/. )aneo was appointed to act as Commissioner toeEect t$e

agreement o' t$e parties and to prepare t$e pro",""".88V divide

t$e proceedse*all/. Col*mba bo*g$t t$e properties. )$e C; appointed Lope C*s C*/os as t$e

newadministrator o' t$e estate based on 0loriaJs absence V c$ange o' residence. )$e

Co*rtordered t$e dministratri: to e:ec*te t$e deed o' sale a'tert$e pa/ment o' t$e s*m

o'PW&."""w$ic$ s$all remain in c*stodialegis, t$en divided among t$e $eirs a'ter pa/ment o'

necessar/ta:es.

C*/os e:ec*ted a eed o' bsol*te Sale over t$e si: parcels o' land in 'avor o' Col*mba 'or

aconsideration o' t$e s*m o' 3&,888.88.8riginal Certi%cates o' )itles were iss*ed in 'avor o'

t$elatter.

n ;eb 199(,0loria, Patrocenia , N*meriano, 2nri*e VSal*d %led wit$ t$e C a petition

'orann*lment o' t$e order o' t$e C; o' Ceb*, alleging t$at t$e C;Js order was n*ll and void and

o'no eEect, t$e same being based on a CommissionerJs Report, w$ic$ was patentl/ 'alse

andirreg*lar5 t$at s*c$ report practicall/ deprived t$em o' d*e process in claiming t$eir s$are

o't$eir 'at$erJs estate, clearl/ s$owing t$at e:trinsic 'ra*d ca*sed t$em to be deprived o'

t$eirpropert/.

)$e C granted t$e petition and declared t$e C; order V t$e Certi%cates o' )itle iss*ed in

t$ename o' Col*mba C*/os-Benatiro n*ll V void, $ence t$is petition 'or review on certiorari.

ISSUE@ ?8N e:trinsic 'ra*d edsted in t$e case at bar serving as a s*aent gro*nd to ann*lt$eC;Js order,

HED@ )$e Co*rt $eld t$at t$e C;5s order s$o*ld be ann*lled not on t$e gro*nd o'

e:trinsic'ra*d, as t$ere is no s*cient evidence to $old tt/. )aneo or an/ o' t$e $eirs g*ilt/ o'

'ra*d, b*ton t$e gro*nd t$at t$e assailed order is void 'or lac o' d*e process.

#13 +aintan

MARIA EENA RODRIGUE PEDROSA, petitioner,

vs.

THE HON. COURT O APPEAS, JOSE, CARMEN, MERCEDES RAMON, & $r"&me*

RODRIGUE, ROSAINA RODRIGUE, CHAN UNG AI, MATEO TAN TE, TE ENG SU,

ORETA TE, ICTORIO S. DETAIA, JEROME DEIPARINE, PETRONIO S. DETAIA, HU/ERT

19


20/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3CCHIU UO, PATERIO N. AO, ORENSITA M. PADIA, IMMACUATE CONCEPCION

COEGE AND IIAN EKPRESS, INC. &"* TIO TUAN, respondents.

ACTS@

8n pril 9, 19D, +ig*el died intestate. )$erea'ter, petitioner +aria 2lena R. Pedrosa-t$e

adpted c$ild and Rosalina entered into an e:tra, t$e C; denied t$e petition and *p$eld t$e validit/ o' t$e adoption.

)$erea'ter, t$e private respondents appealed said decision to t$e Co*rt o' ppeals.

8n +arc$ 11, 19(3, w$ile said appeal was pending, t$e Rodrig*eFes entered into an

e:tra


21/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3CF. ?8N t$e petitioner is entitled to recover t$e lots w$ic$ $ad alread/ been trans'erred to

t$e respondent b*/ers.

=2L5

1. N8. Section >, R*le D> provides 'or a two /ear prescriptive period 1 to persons w$o $aveparticipated or taen part or $ad notice o' t$e e:tra $ave been strictl/ complied wit$, i.e. that all

the persons or heirs o the decedent have ta


22/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3C )$e partition in t$e present case was invalid beca*se it e:cl*ded si: o' t$e nine $eirs w$o

were entitled to e*al s$ares in t$e partitioned propert/. Inder t$e r*le, no e:tra


23/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3CTH5 "665A5; H5IR0 14 A3I665RM1 R30TI"

0*illermo R*stia and 6ose'a elgado never $ad an/ c$ildren. ?it$ no c$ildren o' t$eir own, t$e/

too into t$eir $ome t$e /o*ngsters 0*illermina R*stia R*stia and Nanie R*stia. )$ese c$ildren,

never legall/ adopted b/ t$e co*ple, were w$at was nown in t$e local dialect as a)pun&

a)punan.

*ring $is li'e wit$ 6ose'a, $owever, 0*illermo R*stia did manage to 'at$er an illegitimatec$ild,t$e intervenor-respondent 0*illerma R*stia, wit$ one mparo Sagarbarria. ccording

to 0*illerma, 0*illermo R*stia treated $er as $is da*g$ter, $is own @es$ and blood, and s$e

en


24/28


)$is petition sees to n*lli'/ t$e order o' respondent 6*dge Rom*lo P. Intalan, e:cl*ding 'romt$e

probate proceedings &3 parcels o' land, as well as t$e 8rders iss*ed b/ respondent

6*dgeomingo Coronel Re/es, den/ing t$e petitioner7s motions 'or reconsideration o' t$e

sameorder o' 6*dge Intalan.

n 19!9, RosendoRalla %led a petition 'or t$e probate o' $is own will in t$e C;o' lba/ doceted

as SP No. !&>. n $is will $e le't $is entire estate to $is son, Pablo, leavingnot$ing to $is ot$erson, Pedro.n t$e same /ear, Pedro %led an action 'or t$e partition o' t$e estate o' t$eir mot$er,

PaF2scarella, doceted as Civil Case No. "3.n t$e co*rse o' t$e $earing o' t$e probate case

SP No. !&>, Pablo Ralla %led a motion todismiss t$e petition 'or probate on t$e gro*nd t$at $e

was no longer interested in t$e allowanceo' t$e will o' $is late 'at$er, Rosendo, 'or its probate

wo*ld no longer be bene%cial andadvantageo*s to $im. )$e motion was denied, and t$e denial

was denied b/ t$e Co*rt o' ppeals. )$e latter co*rt agreed wit$ t$e lower co*rt7s

concl*sion t$at, indeed, t$e petitionerstood to gain i' t$e testate proceedings were to be

dismissed beca*se t$en $e wo*ld not becompelled to s*bmit 'or incl*sion in t$e inventor/ o' t$e

estate o' Rosendo 1>9 parcels o' land'rom w$ic$ $e alone $ad been collecting rentals and

receiving income, to t$e e:cl*sion andpre and No. 11 "& were apparentl/trans'erred. Still, a second motion 'or reconsideration was %led.

SSI25 ?$et$er or not t$e e:tra


25/28


#19 li

er"&"*e? v. D!m&+!b&

G.R. No. 2FF8 O%(ober 12, 19

RIL2 D&

;acts5 smael imagiba %led a petition 'or probate o' t$e will o' Benedicta de los Re/es. S*c$

petition was opposed b/ ionisio ;ernandeF, et al. t$e co*rt r*led in 'avor o' probate. ;ernandeF

et al appealed, b*t it was be/ond t$e reglamentar/ period. )$e/ arg*ed t$at t$e/ were entitled

to await t$e ot$er gro*nds 'or opposition be'ore appealing.

ss*e5 w$et$er t$e probate o' t$e will become %nal 'or lac o' appeal

R*ling5 es. probate decree %nall/ and de%nitivel/ settles all *estions concerning capacit/ o'

t$e testator and t$e proper e:ec*tion and witnessing o' t$e will. s s*c$,

probate order is %nal and appealable. )$e/ do not $ave to await t$e resol*tion o' its ot$er

oppositions since t$e R*les o' Co*rt en*merates si: diEerent instances w$en appeal ma/

be taen in special proceedings.

#" Bemida

0.R. No. L-3>>! 6*ne 3, 19&&

REMEDIOS NUGUID, petitioner and appellant,

vs.

EIK NUGUID &"* PA SAONGA NUGUID, oppositors and appellees.

REMEDIOS NUGUID

, vs.

EIK NUGUID &"* PA SAONGA NUGUID

;acts5 Rosario N*g*id, a resident o' M*eFon Cit/, died on ecember 3", 19&, single, wit$o*t

descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. S*rviving $er were $er legitimate parents, ;eli: N*g*idand PaF Salonga N*g*id, andsi: & brot$ers and sisters, namel/5 l'redo, ;ederico, Remedios,

Conrado, Lo*rdes and lberto. Remedios N*g*id, $erein petitioner, pra/ed 'or t$e probate a

$olograp$ic will allegedl/ e:ec*ted b/ Rosario N*g*id on November 1D, 19!1, some 11 /ears

be'ore $er deat$, and t$at letters o' administration wit$ t$e will anne:ed be iss*ed to $er. )$e

will instit*ted Remedios as *niversal $eir and omitted ;eli: and PaFcompletel/. )$e C; $eld t$at

t$e will in *estion is a complete n*llit/ and will per'orce create intestac/ o' t$e estate o'

t$edeceased Rosario N*g*id and dismissed t$e petition wit$o*t costs.

ss*e5 ?$et$er or not t$e will s$o*ld be allowed probate.

=eld5 2S. ' t$e case were to be remanded 'or probate o' t$e will, not$ing will be gained. 8nt$e

contrar/, t$is litigation will be protracted. nd 'or a*g$t t$at appears in t$e record, in t$e event

o' probate or i' t$e co*rt re


26/28


#1 )abor

SPOUSES AJERO v. CA, G.R. No. 1020 Se'(ember 1B, 199=

&%($@ )$e testator named as devisees petitioners o' t$e New Civil Code, ante, werenot complied wit$, $ence, it disallowed t$e probate o' said will. )$is is erroneo*s. reading o'

rticle (13 o' t$e New Civil Code s$ows t$at its re*irement aEects t$e validit/ o' t$e

dispositions contained in t$e $olograp$ic will, b*t not its probate. ' t$e testator 'ails to sign and

date some o' t$e dispositions, t$e res*lt is t$at t$ese dispositions cannot be eEect*ated. S*c$

'ail*re, $owever, does not render t$e w$ole testament void. Liewise, a $olograp$ic will can still

be admitted to probate, notwit$standing non-compliance wit$ t$e provisions o' rticle (1>. )$*s,

*nless t$e *na*t$enticated alterations, cancellations or insertions were made on t$e date o' t$e

$olograp$ic will or on testator7s signat*re, t$eir presence does not invalidate t$e will itsel'. )$e

lac o' a*t$entication will onl/ res*lt in disallowance o' s*c$ c$anges. t is also proper to note

t$at t$e re*irements o' a*t$entication o' c$anges and signing and dating o' dispositions appear

in provisions rticles (13 and (1> separate 'rom t$at w$ic$ provides 'or t$e necessar/

conditions 'or t$e validit/ o' t$e $olograp$ic will rticle (1".

# )abor

De Ar&"? v. Ho". G&!"+, G.R. No. 0= M&) 28, 1988

ACTS@ 8n 3 +arc$ 19(&, private respondent %led wit$ t$e Regional )rial Co*rt o' Pasig, apetition 'or t$e probate and allowance o' t$e last will and testament o' t$e late +ontserrat R-n'ante / 0-Pola )$e petition speci%ed t$e names and addresses o' $erein petitioners aslegatees and devisees. 8n 1 +arc$ 19(&, t$e probate co*rt iss*ed an order setting t$e petition'or $earing on ! +a/ 19(& at (53" o7cloc in t$e morning. Said order was p*blis$ed in t$e N*eva2ra, newspaper o' general circ*lation in +etro +anila once a wee 'or t$ree 3 consec*tivewees. 8n t$e date o' t$e $earing, no oppositor appeared t$*s, moved to 1 +a/ 19(&, onw$ic$ date, t$e probate co*rt iss*ed an order admitting private respondents evidence e:-parte,allowed t$e latter to place rt*ri rceo as one o' t$e testamentar/ witnesses, and appointedprivate respondent as e:ec*tor. Petitioners %led a motion 'or reconsideration o' t$e order o' 1+a/ 19(& alleging t$at, as named legatees, no notices were sent to t$em as re*ired b/ Sec. >,R*le D& o' t$e R*les o' Co*rt and t$e/ pra/ed t$at t$e/ be given a period o' ten 1" da/s wit$inw$ic$ to %le t$eir opposition to t$e probate o' t$e will. Probate co*rt, acting on t$e opposition o' private respondent and t$e repl/ t$ereto o' petitioners, iss*ed an order den/ing petitioners

motion 'or reconsideration. Petitioners %led wit$ t$is Co*rt a petition 'or certiorari andpro$ibition w$ic$ was, $owever, re'erred to t$e Co*rt o' ppeals. )$e Co*rt o' ppeals dismissedt$e petition.

ISSUE@ ?$et$er or not personal notice o' probate proceedings to t$e nown legatees anddevisees is not a


27/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3Clegatees, and devisees residing in t$e P$ilippines at t$eir places o' residence, i' s*c$ places o' residence be nown. )$ere is no *estion t$at t$e residences o' $erein petitioners legatees anddevisees were nown to t$e probate co*rt. )$e petition 'or t$e allowance o' t$e will itsel' indicated t$e names and addresses o' t$e legatees and devisees o' t$e testator. B*t despites*c$ nowledge, t$e probate co*rt did not ca*se copies o' t$e notice to be sent to petitioners.

)$e re*irement o' t$e law 'or t$e allowance o' t$e will was not satis%ed b/ mere p*blication o' t$e notice o' $earing 'or t$ree 3 wees in a newspaper o' general circ*lation in t$e province.

S2C. >. Heirs devisees legatees and eecutors to be notifed by )ail or personally .O )$e co*rt s$all also ca*se copies o' t$e notice o' t$e time and place %:ed 'orproving t$e will to be addressed to t$e designated or ot$er nown $eirs, legatees,and devisees o' t$e testator resident in t$e P$ilippines at t$eir places o' residence,and deposited in t$e post oce wit$ t$e postage t$ereon prepaid at least twent/" da/s be'ore t$e $earing, i' s*c$ places o' residence be nown. cop/ o' t$enotice m*st in lie manner be mailed to t$e person named as e:ec*tor, i' $e be not,t$e petitionerH also, to an/ person named as co-e:ec*tor not petitioning, i' t$eirplaces o' residence be nown. Personal service o' copies o' t$e notice at least ten1" da/s be'ore t$e da/ o' $earing s$all be e*ivalent to mailing.

t is clear 'rom t$e a'orecited r*le t$at notice o' t$e time and place o' t$e $earing 'or t$eallowance o' a will s$all be 'orwarded to t$e designated or ot$er nown $eirs, legatees, anddevisees residing in t$e P$ilippines at t$eir places o' residence, i' s*c$ places o' residence benown. )$ere is no *estion t$at t$e residences o' $erein petitioners legatees and devisees werenown to t$e probate co*rt. )$e petition 'or t$e allowance o' t$e will itsel' indicated t$e namesand addresses o' t$e legatees and devisees o' t$e testator. B*t despite s*c$ nowledge, t$eprobate co*rt did not ca*se copies o' t$e notice to be sent to petitioners. )$e re*irement o' t$elaw 'or t$e allowance o' t$e will was not satis%ed b/ mere p*blication o' t$e notice o' $earing 'ort$ree 3 wees in a newspaper o' general circ*lation in t$e province.

#3 Cali:ton

;acts5 8n 8ctober 1>, """ 0erardo )an died, leaving no will. Private respondents, w$o are

claiming to be t$e c$ildren o' t$e deceased , %led wit$ t$e R)C on 8ctober 31,""1 a Petition 'or

t$e iss*ance o' letters o' administration. Petitioners, claiming to be legitimate $eirs o' 0erardo

)an, %led an 8pposition to t$e Petition. Private respondents t$en moved 'or t$e appointment o' a

special administrator, pra/ed t$at t$eir attorne/-in-'act, Rom*aldo . Lim, be appointed as t$e

special administrator. )$e/ pra/ed t$at t$eir attorne/-in-'act, Rom*aldo . Lim, be appointed as

t$e special administrator. Petitioners %led an 8pposition to private respondentsJ +otion 'or

ppointment, arg*ing t$at none o' t$e private respondents t$e/ are not residing in t$e co*ntr/,

t$at t$e co-petition 4ilma C. )an acting as t$e de 'acto administratri: and t$at t$e co*rt

appointed iss*ed a directives to t$e latter to compl/ in $er capacit/. /ear later 4ilma $as notcomplied wit$ t$e given directive given anot$er ten da/s. gain no compliance $as been made.

8n 6*ne ", ""3, R)C iss*ed an 8rder appointing Rom*aldo as special administrator o'

0erardoJs 2state, t$e motion 'or t$e appointment o' a special administrator is $ereb/ 0RN)2.

Petitioners %led a +otion 'or Reconsideration, claiming t$at petitioner 4ilma s$o*ld be t$e one

appointed as special administrati:. Respondent R)C 2:ec*tive 6*dge, iss*ed an 8rder den/ing

petitionersJ +otion 'or Reconsideration Petitioners instit*ted wit$ t$e Co*rt o' ppeals a Petition

'or Certiorari pra/ed 'or t$e iss*ance o' preliminar/ in


28/28

Special Proceedings Consolidated Cases LLB 3CCertiorari is 2N2, w$ereb/ it appointed Rom*aldo . Lim as special administrator o' t$e

estate o' 0erardo.

#> Cali:ton

&%($@

on 6*an Iriarte / 0oite died in Spain, le't properties bot$ in +anila and Negros. )$e alleged

nat*ral son o' on 6*an, 4icente Iriarte, %led petition 'or settlement o' ntestate 2state o' on

6*an be'ore t$e Negros 8ccidental co*rt. =owever, said petition was opposed b/ t$e nep$ews o'

on 6*an stating t$at t$ere is a valid will le't b/ t$e deceased in Spain, a cop/ o' w$ic$ is being

re*ested. )$en, t$e nep$ews %led a settlement o' t$e estate in t$e co*rt o' +anila, on t$e

basis o' t$e alleged will o' t$e deceased. 4icente %led an opposition to t$e settlement o' estate

in t$e co*rt o' +anila stating t$at t$e co*rt o' Negros $as alread/ ac*ired original

Date post:	07-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	joelebie
View:	224 times
Download:	1 times

SpecPro Consolidated Cases.docx

Documents