CASE DIGEST COMPILATION  Rosendo filed an Amended Petition impleading

RULE 72 Armi and all the persons who have a claim or

interest in the petition
 RTC: On April 1, 1997, rendered a decision in favor
of Rosendo, the court ordered the cancellation of
1) Rosendo Alba versus Court of Appeals, GR No.
the following entries as prayed for
164041, July 29, 2005
 Armi appealed, filed a petition for annulment of
judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
Rosendo Alba, minor represented by his mother lack of jurisdiction over her person
and natural guardian, Armi A. Alba and Armi
Alba, in her personal capacity vs. Court of  That she came to know about the decision of the
Appeals and Rosendo C. Herrera trial court when San Beda, where Rosendo Jr. was
enrolled, furnished her with a copy of the decision
G. R. No. 164041, July 29, 2005
 Armi contended before the CA that she was
Facts:
prevented from participating in the case, that
 Private respondent Rosendo C. Herrera filed a Rosendo was fully aware that she no longer resides
petition for cancellation of the following entries in in No. 418 Erquiza Street, Ermita Manila and yet
the birth certificate of “Rosendo Alba Herrera, caused the service of the summons thereof, thus, it
Jr.”: was unserved (new address: Plaza Tower
(1) The surname of Herrera appended to the name Condominium, Ermita)
of the child  Armi contended that she and Rosendo cohabitated
(2) The reference to Rosendo as the father of the from 1982 to 1988 and that Rosendo give support
child to her son
(3) The alleged marriage with petitioner Armi A.  CA: Dismissed the petition, Armi failed to prove
Alba on August 4, 1982 fraud, her minor child should bear her surname,
 Rosendo alleged that he was never married to thus, the instant Petition for Certiorari
Armi nor fathered Rosendo Jr. Issue:
 In support thereof, Rosendo presented Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing
Certifications from the Civil Registrar and the the petition – NO
National Statistics Office, where both Held:
Certifications stated that they have no record of
marriage between him and Armi
 Petition dismissed.
 Article 176 of the Family Code as amended by RA  Armi’s claim that Rosendo was aware of her
9255, which took effect on March 19, 2004 present address is anchored on the assertion of
illegitimate children shall use the surname of their live-in partnership and support to her son but the
mother, unless their father recognizes their evidence she had presented were not sufficient to
filiation, in which case, they may bear their father’s prove the purported cohabitation and support
surname.  The petition should be dismissed since Armi
 In this case, it is clear from the allegations of Armi should have filed a petition for review under Rule
that she was never married to Rosendo and that 45 and not Certiorari under Rule 65
Rosendo Jr. is an unrecognized illegitimate child
 The filing with the trial court of the petition for 2.) MENDOZA v TEH
cancellation vested with the latter jurisdiction over FACTS:
the res (thing). Substantial corrections or  Petitioner Mendoza, for herself and as
cancellations of entries in civil registry records administratrix of the intestate estate of her
affecting the status or legitimacy of a person may deceased husband Norberto Mendoza filed before
be effected through the institution of a petition RTC Batangas a complaint for reconveyance of
under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court. title and damages with preliminary injunction. The
 Being a proceeding in rem, acquisition of complaint states that she should be appointed as
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Armi judicial administratrix.
Alba is not required. It is enough that the trial  Private Respondents filed a motion to dismiss
court is vested with jurisdiction over the res. alleging that the complaint states no cause of
action, Mendoza's demand had already been paid,
 The service of the order at No. 418 Arquiza Street,
lack of jurisdiction, estoppel, laches and
Ermita, Manila and the publication thereof in a
prescription.
newspaper in general circulation in Manila,
 In support of the lack of jurisdiction, private
sufficiently complied with the requirements of due
respondents contend that a special proceedings
process. Thus, Armi was not denied of due process
case for appointment of administratrix of an estate
to be heard.
cannot be incorporated in the ordinary action for
 Extrinsic fraud was not proven, the alleged love reconveyance.
letters were not formally offered in court as  Mendoza asserts that the allegation seeking
evidence and therefore have no probative value appointment as administratrix is only an
 Armi and her sister’s respective affidavits also have incidental matter which is not even prayed for in
no evidentiary weight since they are not placed on the complaint.
witness stand
  Private Respondents argued that since Mendoza's venue. Section 2 of Rule 4 as revised by Circular
husband resided in QC at the time of death, the 13-958 provides that actions involving title to
appointment of the estate adminstratrix should be property shall be tried in the province where the
filed in RTC QC in accordance with Sec. 1 Rule 73 property is located, in this case, - Batangas.
of the Rules of Court. It is their argument that RTC  The mere fact that Mendoza's deceased husband
has no jurisdiction. resides in Quezon City at the time of his death
 RTC through Judge Teh dismissed the complaint affects only the venue but not the jurisdiction of
for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the rules the Court.
governing ordinary civil action and special  Second, the cases cited by private respondents are
proceeding are different. not applicable in this case as they involve
ISSUE: settlement of estate. In the present suit, only
Whether or not in an action for reconveyance, an allegation seeking appointment.The above
allegation seeking appointment as administratrix, would allegation is not even a jurisdictional fact which
oust RTC Batangas of its jurisdiction over the whole case? must be stated in an action for reconveyance. The
Court therefore, should have at least, proceeded
HELD: NO with the reconveyance suit rather than dismiss the
entire case.
 The law is clear. An action for reconveyance, which  Third, jurisprudential rulings that a probate court
involves title to property is cognizable by RTC. cannot generally decide questions of ownership or
Likewise are action incapable of pecuniary title to property is not applicable in this case,
estimation, such as the appointment of an because: there is no settlement of estate involved
administratrix for an estate. Even the rules on and the RTC of Batangas was not acting as a
venue of estate proceedings (Sec, 1, Rule 73) probate court. Considering that the RTC has
impliedly recognizes the jurisdiction of RTC over jurisdiction, whether it be on the reconveyance suit
petitions for granting letters of administration. or as to the appointment of an administratrix, it
 On the other hand, probate proceedings for the was improper for respondent judge to dismiss the
settlement of estate are within the ambit of either whole complaint for alleged lack of jurisdiction.
RTC or MTC depending on the net worth of the
estate.
 By arguing that the allegation seeking such
appointment as administratrix ousted the RTC of
its jurisdiction, both public and private
respondents confuses jurisdiction with 3.) PORTUGAL VS PORTUGAL-BELTRAN
FACTS: Portugal-Beltran‘s Affidavit of Adjudication and of the
 Jose Portugal married Paz Lazo. title issued in her name.
Subsequently Portugal married petitioner Isabel
de la Puerta and she gave birth to Jose Douglas HELD:
Portugal Jr., her co-petitioner. Meanwhile, Lazo
gave birth to respondent Leonila Perpetua Aleli NO. When the adverse parties are putative heirs to
Portugal. the estate of a decedent or parties to the special
proceedings for its settlement is that if the special
 Portugal and his 4 siblings executed a Deed proceedings are pending, or if there are no special
of Extrajudicial Partition and Waiver of Rights proceedings filed but there is, under the circumstances of
over the estate of their father, Mariano Portugal, the case, a need to file one, then the determination of,
who died intestate. In the deed, Portugal‘s siblings among other issues, heirship should be raised and settled
waived their rights, interests, and participation in said special proceedings. Where special proceedings
over a parcel of land in his favor. had been instituted but had been finally closed and
terminated, however, or if a putative heir has lost the
 Lazo died. Portugal also died intestate. right to have himself declared in the special proceedings
Having such situation, Portugal-Beltran executed as co-heir and he can no longer ask for its re-opening,
an “Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate then an ordinary civil action can be filed for his
of Deceased Person” adjudicating to herself the declaration as heir in order to bring about the annulment
parcel of land. The Registry of Deeds then issued of the partition or distribution or adjudication of a
the title in her name. property or properties belonging to the estate of the
deceased.
 Puerta and Portugal Jr. filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City a In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or
complaint against Portugal-Beltran for annulment wrongly that she was the sole heir to Portugal’s estate, the
of the Affidavit of Adjudication alleging that she is questioned Affidavit of Adjudication. It is an exception to
not related whatsoever to the deceased Portugal, the general rule that when a person dies leaving a
hence, not entitled to inherit the parcel of land. property, it should be judicially administered and the
competent court should appoint a qualified
ISSUE: administrator, in case the deceased left no will, or in case
Whether or not Puerta and Portugal Jr. have to he did, he failed to name an executor therein.
institute a special proceeding to determine their status as
heirs before they can pursue the case for annulment of
 rights and took possession of the subject parcel of
land.
4.) FAUSTINO REYES, ESPERIDION REYES,  During her lifetime, Graciana sold her share over
JULIETA C. RIVERA, and EUTIQUIO DICO, JR., the land to sister Etta.
petitioners, vs. PETER B. ENRIQUEZ, for himself  Thus, making the Etta the sole owner of the one-
and Attorney-in-Fact of his daughter DEBORAH half share of the subject parcel of land.
ANN C. ENRIQUEZ, and SPS. DIONISIO  Subsequently, Etta died and the property passed
FERNANDEZ and CATALINA FERNANDEZ, on to petitioners Peter and Deborah Ann by virtue
respondents. of an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate.
 In 1999, petitioners Peter and his daughter
G.R. No. 162956 April 10, 2008 Deborah Ann sold part of the property to Spouses
Dionisio and Catalina Fernandez (Spouses
FACTS: Fernandez), also their co-respondents in the case
 The subject property in Talisay, Cebu was co- at bar.
owned by Dionisia Reyes and Anacleto Cabrera.  After the sale, Spouses Fernandez took possession
 The petitioners are the lawful heirs of Dionisia of the said area in the subject parcel of land and
Reyes who executed an Extrajudicial Settlement tried to register their share in the subject land, but
with Sale of the Estate of Dionisia Reyes of the they discovered that certain documents prevent
subject parcel of land. them from doing so because of the affidavits and
 In 1997, the petitioners and the known heirs of title certificates conveying such subject property to
Anacleto Cabrera segregated said property, and the different people including the petitioners.
then new TCTs were issued in the name of the  Alleging that the documents are fraudulent and
petitioners. fictitious, the respondents filed a complaint for
 However, the respondents Peter Enriquez and his annulment or nullification of the aforementioned
minor daughter allege that their predecessor-in- documents and for damages. They likewise prayed
interest Anacleto Cabrera and his wife Patricia for the "repartition and resubdivision" of the
Seguera Cabrera (collectively the Spouses Cabrera) subject property.
owned ½ pro-indiviso share in the subject parcel  The RTC dismissed the case on the ground that the
of land. respondents-plaintiffs were actually seeking first
 They further allege that Spouses Cabrera were and foremost to be declared heirs of Anacleto
survived by two daughters – Graciana, who died Cabrera since they cannot demand the partition of
single and without issue, and Etta, the wife of the real property without first being declared as
respondent Peter – who succeeded their parents’ legal heirs and such may not be done in an
 ordinary civil action, as in this case, but through a of a decedent or parties to the special proceedings for its
special proceeding specifically instituted for the settlement is that if the special proceedings are pending,
purpose. or if there are no special proceedings filed but there is,
 The CA reversed the RTC ruling and directed the under the circumstances of the case, a need to file one,
trial court to proceed with the hearing of the case. then the determination of, among other issues, heirship
should be raised and settled in said special proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether the respondents Peter Enriquez and Where special proceedings had been instituted but had
Deborah Enriquez have to institute a special proceeding been finally closed and terminated, however, or if a
to determine their status as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera putative heir has lost the right to have himself declared in
before they can file an ordinary civil action to nullify the the special proceedings as co-heir and he can no longer
mentioned affidavits and title certificates ask for its re-opening, then an ordinary civil action can be
filed for his declaration as heir in order to bring about the
RULING: annulment of the partition or distribution or adjudication
of a property or properties belonging to the estate of the
YES. An ordinary civil action is one by which a party sues deceased.
another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or
the prevention or redress of a wrong. A special
proceeding, on the other hand, is a remedy by which a 5.) HILADO v. CA
party seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular G.R. No. 164108, May 8, 2009
fact. xxx
FACTS:
In cases wherein alleged heirs of a decedent in whose
name a property was registered sue to recover the said  Roberto Benedicto died intestate. He was survived
property through the institution of an ordinary civil by his wife and daughter.
action, such as a complaint for reconveyance and  The wife was appointed administrator of the estate
partition, or nullification of transfer certificate of titles of her husband Roberto Benedicto.
and other deeds or documents related thereto, this Court  At the time of his death, there were two pending
has consistently ruled that a declaration of heirship is civil cases against Benedicto.
improper in an ordinary civil action since the matter is  The first pending civil case corresponds to an
"within the exclusive competence of the court in a special amount of liability of P136 Million with petitioner
proceeding." Alfredo Hilado. The second pending civil case
corresponds to an amount of liability of P35
The common doctrine in Litam, Solivio and Guilas in Million with petitioners Lopez Sugar Corporation
which the adverse parties are putative heirs to the estate
 and First Farmers Holding Corporation. These two This is so because notwithstanding Section 2 of
civil cases were pending before RTC Bacolod City. Rule 72, intervention as set forth under Rule 19
 Now, on the basis of the two pending civil cases, does not extend to creditors of a decedent whose
petitioners filed with RTC Manila a credit is based on a contingent claim. Under Rule
Manifestation/Motion that they be furnished with 19, “intervention” does not accommodate
copies of all processes and orders pertaining to the contingent claims.
intestate proceedings.  Case law has consistently held that the legal
 The wife-administrator opposed the said interest required on the intervenor must be “actual
Manifestation/Motion arguing that they do not and material, direct and immediate, and not
have the personality to intervene in the intestate simply contingent and expectant.”
proceedings of her deceased husband considering  It is also noteworthy that claims of petitioners
that they were plaintiffs in civil cases which are against Benedicto were based on tort. Civil actions
distinct from special proceedings herein. for tort or quasi-delict do not fall within the claims
to be filed under the notice to creditors required
ISSUE: under Rule 86 (Claims against Estate). Therefore,
the intervention of petitioners should not be
 Do petitioners have the personality to intervene in allowed.
the intestate proceeding of Roberto Benedicto,
being the defendant in the pending civil cases they 6.) SHEKER v. SHEKER
filed before RTC Bacolod? FACTS:

HELD & RATIO:  The RTC admitted to probate the holographic

will of Alice Sheker and thereafter issued an
 NONE. The merits of the petitioners’ claims order for all the creditors to file their
against Benedicto are to be settled In the civil respective claims against the estate. In
cases where they were raised, and not in the compliance therewith, petitioner filed on a
intestate proceedings. In the event that their contingent claim for agent’s commission due
claims for damages be granted, then they would him in the event of the sale of certain parcels of
have the right to enforce the judgment against the land belonging to the estate, and
estate. reimbursement for expenses incurred and/or
 The interests of the petitioners remain inchoate to be incurred by petitioner in the course of
and contingent, therefore they do not have the negotiating the sale of said realties.
ability to participate in the intestate proceedings.
  The executrix of the Estate of Whether a contingent claim filed against an estate
Alice Sheker (MEDINA) moved for the in a probate proceeding be dismissed for failing to
dismissal of said money claim against the pay the docket fees at the time of its filing thereat?
estate on the grounds that (1) the requisite
docket fee, as prescribed in Section 7(a), Rule
141 of the Rules of Court, had not been paid;
(2) petitioner failed to attach a certification
against non-forum shopping; and (3)
petitioner failed to attach a written
explanation why the money claim was not filed HELD: NO.
and served personally.
 The RTC-Iligan City issued the assailed Order (b) NO; On the issue of filing fees, the Court ruled
dismissing without prejudice the money claim in Pascual v. Court of Appeals[ that the trial court has
based on the grounds advanced by jurisdiction to act on a money claim (attorney’s fees)
respondent. Petitioner’s MR was denied.Petitioner against an estate for services rendered by a lawyer to
then filed the present petition for review the administratrix to assist her in fulfilling her duties to
on certiorari. the estate even without payment of separate docket fees
 Petitioner maintains that the RTC erred in strictly because the filing fees shall constitute a lien on the
applying to a probate proceeding the rules judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141 of the ROC, or
requiring a certification of non-forum shopping, a the trial court may order the payment of such filing fees
written explanation for non-personal filing, and within a reasonable time. After all, the trial court had
the payment of docket fees upon filing of the already assumed jurisdiction over the action for
claim. He insists that Section 2, Rule 72 of settlement of the estate. Clearly, therefore, non-payment
the ROC provides that rules in ordinary of filing fees for a money claim against the estate is not
actions are applicable to special one of the grounds for dismissing a money claim
proceedings only in a suppletory manner. against the estate.
 [The Court gave due course to the petition for
review on certiorari although directly filed with
this Court, pursuant to Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the
ROC]- note lang^^
 ISSUE:
  Trial Court issued an order in favor of the
Respondents.
CA
 Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
with the CA
 CA dismissed the petition for certiorari as well as the
subsequent MR.

7.) VDA. DE MANALO vs. CA | G.R. No. 129242. CONTENTIONS:

January 16, 2001
 Petitioners claim that the petition in SP. PROC. No.
DE LEON, JR., J.: 92-63626 is actually an ordinary civil action
involving members of the same family
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari virtua1 la
containing certain averments which, according to
them, are indicative of its adversarial nature.
FACTS:  Petitioners contended that a MTD is proper
 Troadio Manalo, a resident of Sampaloc, Manila died because a condition precedent for filing the
intestate. claim has not been complied with for failure to
 He was survived by his wife, Pilar S. Manalo, and his 11 aver that earnest efforts toward a compromise
children. have been made involving members of the
 February 14, 1992: Troadio Manalo died and left same family prior to the filing of the petition
several real properties located in Manila and Tarlac. pursuant to Article 222 of the Civil Code of the
RTC Philippines.
 Respondents, 8 of the surviving children of the late
Troadio, filed a petition with the respondent RTC ISSUE:
Manila for the judicial settlement of the estate of their 1) Whether or not the petition in SP. PROC. No. 92-
late father and for the appointment of their brother, 63626 is actually an ordinary civil action? NO.
Romeo Manalo, as administrator thereof. 2) Whether or not the case at bar is covered under Article
 TC issued an order "declaring the whole world in 222 of the Civil Code where earnest efforts toward
default, except the government.” compromise should first be made prior to the filing of
 Petitioners (oppositors therein) filed a motion and the the petition? – NO.
TC’s order of general default was set aside
RULING: ARTICLE 222. No SUIT shall be filed or maintained
between members of the same family unless it should
1. The instant petition is not impressed with merit. appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have
been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the
limitations in Article 2035.
It is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of
the nature of an action or proceeding, the
averments and the character of the relief sought in The above-quoted provision of the law is
the complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is
controlling. clear from the term "SUIT" that it refers to an action
by one person or persons against another or
others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff
A careful scrutiny of the Petition for Issuance of Letters of pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the
Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right,
belies herein petitioners’ claim that the same is in the whether at law or in equity. A civil action is thus an
nature of an ordinary civil action.  IT IS A SPECIAL action filed in a court of justice, whereby a party sues
PROCEEDING. another for the enforcement of a right, or the prevention
or redress of a wrong.
The said petition contains sufficient jurisdictional
facts required in a petition for the settlement of The Petition for Issuance of Letters of
estate of a deceased person such as the fact of death Administration, Settlement and Distribution of
of the late Troadio and his residence in the City of Manila Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 is a special
at the time of his said death. The FACTS OF THE proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy whereby the
DEATH of the decedent and of HIS RESIDENCE petitioners therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a
WITHIN THE COUNTRY are foundation facts particular fact.
upon which all the subsequent proceedings in the
administration of the estate rest. It also contains
an enumeration of the names of his legal heirs The private respondents herein merely seek to
including a tentative list of the properties left by establish the fact of death of their father and
the deceased which are sought to be settled in the subsequently to be duly recognized as among the
probate proceedings. heirs of the said deceased so that they can validly
exercise their right to participate in the settlement and
liquidation of the estate of the decedent consistent with
2. the limited and special jurisdiction of the probate court.
 the second lot (TCT No. 107443) to Natcher, as a
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. result, TCT No. 107443 was cancelled and a new
one was issued in the name of Patricia Natcher.
8.) Patricia Natcher vs. Hon. Court of Appeals  Graciano died leaving Natcher and his six children
and the Heir of Graciano Del Rosario, etc., et al. as heirs.
G. R. No. 133000, October 2, 2001  The heirs then filed a Complaint before the RTC of
Manila, Branch 55 for reconveyance of title /
Facts: annulment of title with damages
 The heirs alleged that Natcher employed fraud,
 Spouses Graciano del Rosario and Graciana misrepresentation and forgery in acquiring TCT
Esguerra were registered owners of a parcel of No. 107443 by making it appear that Graciano
land executed a Deed of Sale dated June 25, 1987, and
 Upon the death of Graciana, Graciano together because of this scheme, their legitimes have been
with his six children entered into an extra judicial impaired
settlement of Graciana’s estate on 09 February  In her Answer, Natcher averred that she was
1954, adjudicating and dividing among themselves legally married to Graciano and thus, under the
the real property subject of TCT No. 11889, thus a law, she was likewise considered as a compulsory
new TCT was issued in favor of Graciano and his heir and that Graciano already distributed the
six children (TCT No. 35980) respective shares of his children during his lifetime
 On 09 February 1954, the said heirs also executed  The RTC ruled in favor of the heirs finding that the
and forged an “Agreement of Consolidation- deed of sale between Graciano and Natcher is
Subdivision of Real Property with Waiver of Rights prohibited under the law and the deed cannot be
where they subdivided among themselves TCT No. regarded as a donation
35980 into several lots  On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the
 Graciano donated his share to his six children decision of the lower court and ruled that the
leaving only 447.60 square meters for himself probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to make a
(TCT No. 35988) just and legal distribution of the estate.
 Graciano further subdivided TCT No. 35988 into  That the lower court erred in trying an ordinary
two lots. He sold the first lot (TCT No. 107442) to action for reconveyance/annulment of title, and
third person and retained the second (TCT No. went beyond its jurisdiction when it performed the
107443) lot for himself. acts proper only in a special proceeding for the
 On 20 March 1980, Graciano married petitioner settlement of the estate of a deceased person.
Natcher and during the marriage, Graciano sold  Hence, the instant petition.
 by the probate court and the rights of third parties
Issue: are not impaired, then the probate court is
competent to decide the question of ownership.
Whether the RTC, the court of general jurisdiction,  The trial court failed to observe established rules
in an action for reconveyance/annulment of title, of procedure governing the settlement of the estate
(ordinary action) has the authority to adjudicate and of Graciano.
resolve the issue of advancement of real property
(special proceedings) in favor of Natcher. – NO

Held:

 Petition dismissed.
 The Regional Trial Court acting in its general
jurisdiction, is devoid of any authority to render an
adjudication and resolve the issue of advancement
of real property in favor of Natcher
 Inasmuch as Civil Case No. 471075 for
reconveyance and annulment of title with damages
is not, to our mind, the proper vehicle to thresh
out said question.
 Moreover, under the present circumstances, the
RTC of Manila, Branch 55 was not properly
constituted as a probate court so as to validly pass
upon the question of advancement made by the
decedent Graciano Del Rosario to his wife, herein
petitioner Natcher.
 Analogously, this Court has consistently
enunciated the long standing principle that
although generally, a probate court may not decide
a question of title or ownership, yet if the
interested parties are all heirs, or the question
is one of collation or advancement, or the
parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction