spec proc cases

7/25/2019 Spec Proc Cases

1/90

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

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.

R E S O ! " I O N

REES, J.:

T#e C&$e

#efore us is a Petition for Revie$ on Certiorari%under Rule &' of the Rules of Court assailin( the Dece)ber %&, *++

Decision*and -ul /, *+%+ Resolution0of the Court of 1ppeals 2C13 in C145.R. SP No. /'6. "he dispositive portion of the

assailed Decision reads7

WHERE3ORE, in vie$ of all the fore(oin( pre)ises, 8ud()ent is hereb rendered b us DENINGthe petition filed in this

case and A33IRMINGthe assailed Orders dated March %', *++9 and Ma %6, *++9 issued b the respondent -ud(e of the

Re(ional "rial Court 2R"C3, #ranch 6, in Manila in Civil Case No. +*4%+'*'%.&

"he assailed Resolution denied the petitioners: Motion for Reconsideration.

T#e 3&%(& A"(e%e*e"($

So)eti)e bet$een Nove)ber *', *++* and Dece)ber 0, *++*,'the respondents filed a Co)plaint6a(ainst the petitioners

and Stron(hold Insurance Co)pan, 5lobal #usiness #an;, Inc. 2for)erl Phil#an;3, Elena "iu Del Pilar, 1sia 1tlantic

Resources Ventures, Inc., Re(isters of Deeds of Manila and Malabon, and all persons clai)in( ri(hts or titles fro) Ra)on

Chin( 2Ra)on3 and his successors4in4interest.

"he Co)plaint, captioned as one for arrants of arrest

issued a(ainst hi) have re)ained unserved as he is at lar(e. ?ro) the fore(oin( circu)stances and upon the

authorit of 1rticle %9of the Ne$ Civil Code 2NCC3, the respondents concluded that Ra)on can be le(all

disinherited, hence, prohibited fro) receivin( an share fro) the estate of 1ntonio.

Se%o"* C&$e o- A%(!o". On 1u(ust *6, %6, prior to the conclusion of the police investi(ations ta((in( Ra)on

as the pri)e suspect in the )urder of 1ntonio, the for)er )ade an inventor of the latter:s estate. Ra)on

)isrepresented that there $ere onl si@ real estate properties left b 1ntonio. "he respondents alle(ed that Ra)on

had ille(all transferred to his na)e the titles to the said properties. ?urther, there are t$o other parcels of land,

cash and 8e$elries, plus properties in Aon(;on(, $hich $ere in Ra)on:s possession.

T#!r* C&$e o- A%(!o". Mercedes, bein( of lo$ educational attain)ent, $as s$eet4tal;ed b Ra)on into

surrenderin( to hi) a 5lobal #usiness #an;, Inc. 25lobal #an;3 Certificate of "i)e Deposit ofP

&,+++,+++.++ in the

na)e of 1ntonio, and the certificates of title coverin( t$o condo)iniu) units in #inondo $hich $ere purchased b

1ntonio usin( his o$n )one but $hich $ere re(istered in Ra)on:s na)e. Ra)on also fraudulentl

)isrepresented to -oseph, -ai)e and Mercedes that the $ill pro)ptl receive their co)plete shares, e@clusive of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt1


2/90

the stoc;s in Po >in( Properties, Inc. 2Po >in(3, fro) the estate of 1ntonio. E@ertin( undue influence, Ra)on had

convinced the) to e@ecute an 1(ree)ent/and a >aiveron 1u(ust *+, %6. "he ter)s and conditions stipulated

in the 1(ree)ent and >aiver, specificall, on the pa)ent b Ra)on to -oseph, -ai)e and Mercedes of the

a)ount of P**,+++,+++.++, $ere not co)plied $ith. ?urther, ucina $as not infor)ed of the e@ecution of the said

instru)ents and had not received an a)ount fro) Ra)on. Aence, the instru)ents are null and void.

3or(# C&$e o- A%(!o". 1ntonio:s &+,+++ shares in Po >in(, $hich constitute 6+B of the latter:s total capital

stoc;, $ere ille(all transferred b Ra)on to his o$n na)e throu(h a for(ed docu)ent of sale e@ecuted after

1ntonio died. Po >in( o$ns a ten4store buildin( in #inondo. Ra)on:s clai) that he bou(ht the stoc;s fro)

1ntonio before the latter died is baseless. ?urther, ucina:s shares in Po >in( had also banished into thin air

throu(h Ra)on:s )achinations.

3!-(# C&$e o- A%(!o". On October *, %6, Ra)on e@ecuted an 1ffidavit of E@tra4-udicial Settle)ent of

Estate%+ad8udicatin( solel to hi)self 1ntonio:s entire estate to the pre8udice of the respondents. # virtue of the

said instru)ent, ne$ "ransfer Certificates of "itle 2"C"s3 coverin( ei(ht real properties o$ned b 1ntonio $ere

issued in Ra)on:s na)e. Relative to the Po >in( shares, the Re(ister of Deeds of Manila had reuired Ra)on to

post a Suret #ond conditioned to ans$er for $hatever clai)s $hich )a eventuall surface in connection $ith the

said stoc;s. Co4defendant Stron(hold Insurance Co)pan issued the bond in Ra)on:s behalf.

S!4(# C&$e o- A%(!o".Ra)on sold 1ntonio:s t$o parcels of land in Navotas to co4defendant 1sia 1tlantic

#usiness Ventures, Inc. 1nother parcel of land, $hich $as part of 1ntonio:s estate, $as sold b Ra)on to co4

defendant Elena "iu Del Pilar at an unreasonabl lo$ price. # reason of Ra)on:s lac; of authorit to dispose of

an part of 1ntonio:s estate, the conveances are null and voidab initio*

Since Ra)on is at lar(e, his $ife, #elen D "an Chin(, no$ )ana(es 1ntonio:s estate. She has no intent to conve to the

respondents their shares in the estate of 1ntonio.

"he respondents thus praed for the follo$in( in their Co)plaint7

%. @ @ @ a te)porar restrainin( order be issued restrainin( the defendant R1MON CAIN5 and=or his attorne4in4fact #elen

D "an Chin( fro) disposin(, sellin( or alienatin( an propert that belon(s to the estate of the deceased 1N"ONIO

CAIN5

@ @ @

&. @ @ @

a.3 Declarin( that the defendant R1MON CAIN5 $ho )urdered his father 1N"ONIO CAIN5 disualified as heir

and fro) inheritin( to 2sic3 the estate of his father

b.3 Declarin( the nullit of the defendant R1MON CAIN5 transfer 2sic3 of the si@ 6F parcels of land fro) the na)e

of his father 1N"ONIO CAIN5 to his na)e covered b "C" No. @ @ @

c.3 Declarin( the nullit of the 15REEMEN" and >1IVER e@ecuted b plaintiffs @ @ @ in favor of @ @ @ R1MON

CAIN5 for bein( patentl i))oral, invalid, ille(al, si)ulated and 2sic3 sha)

d.3 Declarin( the nullit of the transfer of the shares of stoc;s at 2sic3 PO >IN5 fro) the na)es of 1N"ONIO

CAIN5 and !CIN1 S1N"OS to the defendant 1N"ONIO CAIN5:s na)e for havin( been ille(all procured

throu(h the falsification of their si(natures in the docu)ent purportin( the transfer thereof

e.3 Declarin( the nullit and to have no force and effect the 1??ID1VI" O? SE""EMEN" O? ES"1"E e@ecuted

b @ @ @ R1MON CAIN5 for bein( contrar to la$ and e@istin( 8urisprudence

f.3 Declarin( the nullit of the DEED O? S1ES 2sic3 e@ecuted b @ @ @ R1MON CAIN5 2i3 over t$o 2*3 parcels of

land @ @ @ to defendant 1SI1 1"1N"IC #!SINESS VEN"!RES, Inc. and 2ii3 one 2%3 parcel of land @ @ @ sold to @

@ @ EEN1 "I! DE PI1R for havin( ille(all procured the o$nership and titles of the above properties

@ @ @.%%

"he petitioners filed $ith the R"C a Motion to Dis)iss%*alle(in( foru) shoppin(, litis &endentia, res )udicataand the

respondents as not bein( the real parties in interest.

On -ul 0+, *++&, the R"C issued an O)nibus Order%0denin( the petitioners: Motion to Dis)iss.

"he respondents filed an 1)ended Co)plaint%&dated 1pril 9, *++' i)pleadin( Metroban; as the successor4in4interest of co4

defendant 5lobal #an;. "he 1)ended Co)plaint also added a $eve"(# %&$e o- &%(!o"relative to the e@istence of a
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt14


3/90

Certificate of Pre)iu) Plus 1cuisition 2CPP13 in the a)ount of P&,+++,+++.++ ori(inall issued b Phil#an; to 1ntonio. "he

respondents praed that the be declared as the ri(htful o$ners of the CPP1 and that it be i))ediatel released to the).

1lternativel, the respondents praed for the issuance of a hold order relative to the CPP1 to preserve it durin( the pendenc

of the case.

On 1pril **, *++', the petitioners filed their Consolidated 1ns$er $ith Counterclai).%'

On October */, *++', the R"C issued an Order%6ad)ittin( the respondents: 1)ended Co)plaint. "he R"C stressed that

Metroban; had alread filed Manifestations ad)ittin( that as successor4in4interest of 5lobal #an;, it no$ possesses custod

of 1ntonio:s deposits. Metroban; e@pressed $illin(ness to abide b an court order as re(ards the disposition of 1ntonio:s

deposits. "he petitioners: Motion for Reconsideration filed to assail the aforecited Order $as denied b the R"C on Ma 0,

*++6.

On Ma *, *++6, the petitioners filed their Consolidated 1ns$er $ith Counterclai) to the respondents: 1)ended Co)plaint.

On 1u(ust %%, *++6, the R"C issued a pre4trial order.%9

On -anuar %/, *++9, the petitioners filed a Motion to Dis)iss%/the respondents: 1)ended Co)plaint on the alle(ed (round

of the R"C:s lac; of 8urisdiction over the sub8ect )atter of the Co)plaint. "he petitioners ar(ued that since the

1)endedCo)plaint sou(ht the release of the CPP1 to the respondents, the latter:s declaration as heirs of 1ntonio, and thepropriet of Ra)on:s disinheritance, the suit parta;es of the nature of a special proceedin( and not an ordinar action for

declaration of nullit. Aence, 8urisdiction pertains to a probate or intestate court and not to the R"C actin( as an ordinar

court.

On March %', *++9, the R"C issued an Order%denin( the petitioners: Motion to Dis)iss on (rounds7

In the case at bar, an e@a)ination of the Co)plaint $ould disclose that the action delves )ainl on the uestion of

o$nership of the properties described in the Co)plaint $hich can be properl settled in an ordinar civil action. 1nd as

pointed out b the defendants, the action see;s to declare the nullit of the 1(ree)ent, >aiver, 1ffidavit of E@tra4-udicial

Settle)ent, Deed of 1bsolute Sale, "ransfer Certificates of "itle, $hich $ere all alle(edl e@ecuted b defendant Ra)on

Chin( to defraud the plaintiffs. T#e re!e- o- e$(&b!$#!"+ (#e $(&($ o- (#e '&!"(!--$ 5#!%# %o* #&ve (r&"$&(e* (#!$

&%(!o" !"(o & $'e%!& 'ro%ee*!"+ 5&$ "o5#ere $(&(e* !" (#e Ame"*e* Com'&!"(. W!(# re+&r* 6(o7 (#e 'r&)er (o

*e%&re (#e '&!"(!--$ &$ (#e r!+#(- o5"er6$7 o- (#e CPPA &"* (#&( (#e $&me be !mme*!&(e) ree&$e* (o (#em, !"!($e- 'o$e$ &" !$$e o- o5"er$#!' 5#!%# m$( be 'rove* b) '&!"(!--$ b) $b$(&"(!& ev!*e"%e . 1nd as e)phasiGed

b the plaintiffs, the 1)ended Co)plaint $as intended to i)plead Metroban; as a co4defendant.

1s re(ards the issue of disinheritance, the court notes that durin( the Pre4trial of this case, one of the issues raised b the

defendants Ra)on Chin( and Po >in( Properties is7 >hether or not there can be disinheritance in intestate successionH

>hether or not defendant Ra)on Chin( can be le(all disinherited fro) the estate of his fatherH "o the )ind of the Court,

the issue of disinheritance, $hich is one of the causes of action in the Co)plaint, can be full settled after a trial on the

)erits. 1nd at this sta(e, it has not been sufficientl established $hether or not there is a $ill.*+2E)phasis supplied.3

"he above Order, and a subseuent Order dated Ma %6, *++9 denin( the petitioners: Motion for Reconsideration, beca)e

the sub8ects of a petition for certiorarifiled $ith the C1. "he petition, doc;eted as C145.R. SP No. /'6, raised the issue of

$hether or not the R"C (ravel abused its discretion $hen it denied the petitioners: Motion to Dis)iss despite the fact that

the 1)ended Co)plaint sou(ht to establish the status or ri(hts of the respondents $hich sub8ects are $ithin the a)bit of a

special proceedin(.

On Dece)ber %&, *++, the C1 rendered the no$ assailed Decision*%denin( the petition for certiorarion (rounds7

Our in4depth assess)ent of the condensed alle(ations supportin( the causes of action of the a)ended co)plaint induced

us to infer that "o(#!"+ !" (#e $&!* %om'&!"( $#o5$ (#&( (#e &%(!o" o- (#e 'r!v&(e re$'o"*e"($ $#o* be (#re$#e*

o( !" & $'e%!& 'ro%ee*!"+, !( &''e&r!"+ (#&( (#e!r &e+&(!o"$ 5ere $b$(&"(!&) -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 $&!* &me"*e* %om'&!"( !" or*er (o 'ro(e%( (#em -rom (#e %o"$ee"%e o- (#e -r&*e"( &%($ o-

R&mo" C#!"+ b) $ee!"+ (o *!$&!-) R&mo" C#!"+ -rom !"#er!(!"+ -rom A"(o"!o C#!"+ &$ 5e &$ (o e":o!" #!m

-rom *!$'o$!"+ or &!e"&(!"+ (#e $b:e%( 'ro'er(!e$, !"%*!"+ (#e P

; M!!o" *e'o$!( 5!(# Me(rob&". "he intestate or

probate court has no 8urisdiction to ad8udicate such issues, $hich )ust be sub)itted to the court in the e@ercise of its

(eneral 8urisdiction as a re(ional trial court. ?urther)ore, $e a(ree $ith the trial court that the probate court could not ta;e

co(niGance of the praer to disinherit Ra)on Chin(, (iven the undisputed fact that there $as no $ill to be contested in a

probate court.

"he petition at bench apparentl cavils the sub8ect a)ended co)plaint and co)plicates the issue of 8urisdiction b

reiteratin( the (rounds or defenses set up in the petitioners: earlier pleadin(s. Not$ithstandin(, the 8urisdiction of the court

over the sub8ect )atter is deter)ined b the alle(ations of the co)plaint $ithout re(ard to $hether or not the private

respondents 2plaintiffs3 are entitled to recover upon all or so)e of the causes of action asserted therein. In this re(ard, the

8urisdiction of the court does not depend upon the defenses pleaded in the ans$er or in the )otion to dis)iss, lest the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt21


4/90

uestion of 8urisdiction $ould al)ost entirel depend upon the petitioners 2defendants3.**Aence, $e focus our resolution on

the issue of 8urisdiction on the alle(ations in the a)ended co)plaint and not on the defenses pleaded in the )otion to

dis)iss or in the subseuent pleadin(s of the petitioners.

In fine, under the circu)stances of the present case, there bein( "o %om'e!"+ re&$o" (o $(! $b:e%( (#e &%(!o" o- (#e

'e(!(!o"er$ !" & $'e%!& 'ro%ee*!"+ $!"%e (#e "!-!%&(!o" o- (#e $b:e%( *o%me"($ %o* be &%#!eve* !" (#e %!v!

%&$e, the lo$er court should proceed to evaluate the evidence of the parties and render a decision thereon upon the issues

that it defined durin( the pre4trial in Civil Case No. +*4%+'*'%.*02e)phasis supplied3

"he petitioners: Motion for Reconsideration $as denied b the C1 throu(h a Resolution*&issued on -ul /, *+%+.

T#e I$$e

"he instant Petition for Revie$ on Certiorari*'is anchored on the issue ofhether or not the R"C should have (ranted the Motion to Dis)iss filed b the PE"I"IONERS on the alle(ed (round of the

R"C:s lac; of 8urisdiction over the sub8ect )atter of the 1)ended Co)plaint, to $it, 2a3 filiations $ith 1ntonio of Ra)on,

-ai)e and -oseph 2b3 ri(hts of co))on4la$ $ives, ucina and Mercedes, to be considered as heirs of 1ntonio 2c3

deter)ination of the e@tent of 1ntonio:s estate and 2d3 other )atters $hich can onl be resolved in a special proceedin( and

not in an ordinar civil action.

"he petitioners ar(ue that onl a probate court has the authorit to deter)ine 2a3 $ho are the heirs of a decedent 2b3 the

validit of a $aiver of hereditar ri(hts 2c3 the status of each heir and 2d3 $hether the propert in the inventor is con8u(al or

the e@clusive propert of the deceased spouse.*6?urther, the e@tent of 1ntonio:s estate, the status of the contendin( parties

and the respondents: alle(ed entitle)ent as heirs to receive the proceeds of 1ntonio:s CPP1 no$ in Metroban;:s custod are

)atters $hich are )ore appropriatel the sub8ects of a special proceedin( and not of an ordinar civil action.

"he respondents opposed*9the instant petition clai)in( that the petitioners are en(a(ed in foru) shoppin(. Specificall,

5.R. Nos. %9''+9*/and %/0/&+,*both involvin( the contendin( parties in the instant petition $ere filed b the petitioners

and are currentl pendin( before this Court. ?urther, in +endoa v* on* Teh,0+the SC declared that $hether a particular

)atter should be resolved b the R"C in the e@ercise of its (eneral 8urisdiction or its li)ited probate 8urisdiction, is not a

8urisdictional issue but a )ere uestion of procedure. #esides, the petitioners, havin( validl sub)itted the)selves to the

8urisdiction of the R"C and havin( activel participated in the trial of the case, are alread estopped fro) challen(in( theR"C:s 8urisdiction over the respondents: Co)plaint and 1)ended Co)plaint.0%

T#e Cor(=$ R!"+

>e resolve to den the instant petition.

"he petitioners failed to co)pl $ith a la$ful order of this Court directin( the) to file their repl to the respondents:

Co))ent=Opposition to the instant Petition. >hile the prescribed period to co)pl e@pired on March %', *+%%, the

petitioners filed their Manifestation that the $ill no lon(er file a repl onl on October %+, *+%% or after the lapse of al)ost

seven )onths.

?urther, no reversible errors $ere co))itted b the R"C and the C1 $hen the both ruled that the denial of the petitioners:

second )otion to dis)iss Civil Case No. +*4%+'*'% $as proper.

Even $ithout delvin( into the procedural alle(ations of the respondents that the petitioners en(a(ed in foru) shoppin( and

are alread estopped fro) uestionin( the R"C:s 8urisdiction after havin( validl sub)itted to it $hen the latter participated

in the proceedin(s, the denial of the instant Petition is still in order. 1lthou(h the respondents: Co)plaint and 1)ended

Co)plaint sou(ht, a)on( others, the disinheritance of Ra)on and the release in favor of the respondents of the CPP1 no$

under Metroban;:s custod, Civil Case No. +*4%+'*'% re)ains to be an ordinar civil action, and not a special proceedin(

pertainin( to a settle)ent court.

1n action for reconveance and annul)ent of title $ith da)a(es is a civil action, $hereas )atters relatin( to settle)ent of

the estate of a deceased person such as advance)ent of propert )ade b the decedent, parta;e of the nature of a special

proceedin(, $hich conco)itantl reuires the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.0*1 special

proceedin( is a re)ed b $hich a part see;s to establish a status, a ri(ht, or a particular fact.00It is distin(uished fro) an

ordinar civil action $here a part sues another for the enforce)ent or protection of a ri(ht, or the prevention or redress of a$ron(.0&"o initiate a special proceedin(, a petition and not a co)plaint should be filed.

!nder 1rticle %6 of the NCC, disinheritance can be effected onl throu(h a $ill $herein the le(al cause therefor shall be

specified. "his Court a(rees $ith the R"C and the C1 that $hile the respondents in their Co)plaint and 1)ended Co)plaint

sou(ht the disinheritance of Ra)on, no $ill or an instru)ent supposedl effectin( the disposition of 1ntonio:s estate $as

ever )entioned.Aence, despite the praer for Ra)on:s disinheritance, Civil Case No. +*4%+'*'% does not parta;e of the

nature of a special proceedin( and does not call for the probate court:s e@ercise of its li)ited 8urisdiction.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt34


5/90

"he petitioners also ar(ue that the praers in the 1)ended Co)plaint, see;in( the release in favor of the respondents of the

CPP1 under Metroban;:s custod and the nullification of the instru)ents sub8ect of the co)plaint, necessaril reuire the

deter)ination of the respondents: status as 1ntonio:s heirs.

It bears stressin( that $hat the respondents praed for $as that the be declared asthe ri(htful o$ners of the CPP1 $hich

$as in Mercedes: possession prior to the e@ecution of the 1(ree)ent and >aiver. "he respondents also praed for the

alternative relief of securin( the issuance b the R"C of a hold order relative to the CPP1 to preserve 1ntonio:s deposits $ith

Metroban; durin( the pendenc of the case. It can thus be said that the respondents: praer relative to the CPP1 $as

pre)ised on Mercedes: prior possession of and their alle(ed collective o$nership of the sa)e, and not on the declaration of

their status as 1ntonio:s heirs. ?urther, it also has to be e)phasiGed that the respondents $ere parties to the e@ecution of

the 1(ree)ent0'and >aiver06praed to be nullified. Aence, even $ithout the necessit of bein( declared as heirs of 1ntonio,

the respondents have the standin( to see; for the nullification of the instru)ents in the li(ht of their clai)s that there $as no

consideration for their e@ecution, and that Ra)on e@ercised undue influence and co))itted fraud a(ainst the).

Conseuentl, the respondents then clai)ed that the 1ffidavit of E@tra4-udicial Settle)ent of 1ntonios estate e@ecuted b

Ra)on, and the "C"s issued upon the authorit of the said affidavit, are null and void as $ell. Ra)on:s aver)ent that a

resolution of the issues raised shall first reuire a declaration of the respondents: status as heirs is a )ere defense $hich is

not deter)inative of $hich court shall properl e@ercise 8urisdiction.

In +ar)orie adimas v* +arites arrion and .emma ugo,09the Court declared7

It is an ele)entar rule of procedural la$ that 8urisdiction of the court over the sub8ect )atter is deter)ined b the alle(ations

of the co)plaint irrespective of $hether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or so)e of the clai)s asserted

therein. 1s a necessar conseuence, the 8urisdiction of the court cannot be )ade to depend upon the defenses set up in

the ans$er or upon the )otion to dis)iss, for other$ise, the uestion of 8urisdiction $ould al)ost entirel depend upon the

defendant. >hat deter)ines the 8urisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearin( fro) the alle(ations

in the co)plaint. "he aver)ents in the co)plaint and the character of the relief sou(ht are the )atters to be consulted. /0!&hi/

In su), this Court a(rees $ith the C1 that the nullification of the docu)ents sub8ect of Civil Case No. +*4%+'*'% could be

achieved in an ordinar civil action, $hich in this specific case $as instituted to protect the respondents fro) the supposedl

fraudulent acts of Ra)on* %n the event that the 'T !ill find grounds to grant the reliefs &rayed for by the res&ondents, the

only conse1uence !ill be the reversion of the &ro&erties sub)ect of the dis&ute to the estate of Antonio* ivil ase No* 23-

/2434/ !as not instituted to conclusively resolve the issues relating to the administration, li1uidation and distribution of

Antonio5s estate, hence, not the &ro&er sub)ect of a s&ecial &roceeding for the settlement of the estate of a deceased &erson

under 'ules 67-8/ of the 'ules of ourt*

"he respondents: resort to an ordinar civil action before the R"C )a not be strate(icall sound, because a settle)ent

proceedin( should thereafter still follo$, if their intent is to recover fro) Ra)on the properties alle(ed to have been ille(all

transferred in his na)e. #e that as it )a, the R"C, in the e@ercise of its (eneral 8urisdiction, cannot be restrained fro)

ta;in( co(niGance of respondents: Co)plaint and 1)ended Co)plaint as the issues raised and the praers indicated therein

are )atters $hich need not be threshed out in a special proceedin(.

WHERE3ORE, the instant petition is DENIED. "he petitioners: 2a3 Opposition to the respondents: Motion to 1d)it

Substitution of Part0/and 2b3 Manifestation0throu(h counsel that the $ill no lon(er file a repl to the respondents:

Co))ent=Opposition to the instant petition are NOTED.

SO ORDERED.

/IEN>ENIDO . REES

1ssociate -ustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_192828_2011.html#fnt39


6/90


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN #1NC

G.R. No. ?18@99 M&r%# 1, 19;

HON. JOSE 3. 3ERNANDE, J*+e o- (#e Cor( o- 3!r$( I"$(&"%e, Ne+ro$ O%%!*e"(&,

ASUNCION MARA>IA, ET A.,petitioners,

vs.

HERMINIO MARA>IA,respondent.

Jose .utierre David, A* Aveto, A* +irasol and "* * 'amos for &etitioners*

"aredes, "oblador, ru and Naareno for res&ondent*

/ARRERA, J.:

Petitioners herein appeal b certiorarifro) the decision of the Court of 1ppeals 2in C145.R. No. *9*++4R3 $herein, over

their ob8ection, raisin( the uestion of 8urisdiction petition, the appellate court too; co(niGance of the petition

for certiorariand prohibition filed b Aer)inio Maravilla and, in conseuence thereof, set aside the appoint)ent of petitioner

ElieGar opeG as a special co4ad)inistrator of the estate of the deceased Di(na Maravilla. "he pertinent antecedent facts

are as follo$s7

On 1u(ust *', %'/, respondent Aer)inio Maravilla filed $ith he Court of ?irst Instance of Ne(ros Occidental a petition for

probate of the $ill 2Spec. Proc. No. &993 of his deceased $ife Di(na Maravilla $ho died on 1u(ust %* of that sa)e ear. In

the $ill the survivin( spouse $as na)ed as the universal heir and e@ecutor.

On Septe)ber 0+, %'/, Pedro, 1suncion, and Re(ina Maravilla 2brother and sisters of the deceased Di(na Maravilla3 filed

an opposition to the probate of the $ill, on the (round, inter alia, that the $ill $as not si(ned on each pa(e b the testatri@ in

the presence of the attestin( $itnesses and of one another.

On March %6, %', on )otion of respondent Aer)inio, $hich $as opposed b Pedro, 1suncion, and Re(ina Maravilla, the

court issued an order appointin( hi) special ad)inistrator of the estate of the deceased, for the reason that7

... all the properties sub8ect of the $ill are con8u(al properties of the petitioner and his late $ife, Di(na Maravilla,

and before an partition of the con8u(al propert is done, the Court cannot pinpoint $hich of the propert sub8ect of

the >ill belon(s to Di(na Maravilla, e@clusivel, that shall be ad)inistered b the special ad)inistrator. Aence,

althou(h it is true that the petitioner Aer)inio Maravilla has an adverse interest in the propert sub8ect of the >ill,


7/90

the Court finds it i)possible for the present ti)e to appoint an person other than the petitioner as special

ad)inistrator of the propert until after the partition is ordered, for the reason that the properties )entioned in the

>ill are in the na)e of the petitioner $ho is the survivin( spouse of the deceased.

On ?ebruar /, %6+, the court rendered a decision denin( probate of the $ill, as it $as not dul si(ned on each pa(e b

the testatri@ in the presence of the attestin( $itnesses and of one another.

On ?ebruar %9, %6+, Pedro, 1suncion, and Re(ina Maravilla, filed $ith the court a petition for appoint)ent of ElieGar

opeG 2son of 1suncion Maravilla3 as special co4ad)inistrator to protect their interests, on the (round that the $ill, havin(

been denied probate, the are the le(al heirs of the decedent. Said petition $as heard on ?ebruar *+, at $hich hearin(,

respondent:s counsel orall )oved for postpone)ent, because respondent:s principal counsel 2Salon(a3 had not been

notified and $as not present. "he court ordered presentation of oral evidence, consistin( of the testi)onies of ElieGar opeG,

and Re(ina and ?rancisco Maravilla.

On ?ebruar *6, %6+, respondent filed $ith the court his notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal, fro) the

decision denin( probate of the $ill. So)e devisees under the $ill, li;e$ise, appealed fro) said decision.

On ?ebruar *', %6+, Pedro, 1suncion, and Re(ina Maravilla, filed $ith the court a petition for the re)oval of respondent

as special ad)inistrator, as he failed to file an inventor $ithin 0 )onths fro) his appoint)ent and ualification as special

ad)inistrator, as provided for in Section %, Rule /&, of the Rules of Court. "o this petition, respondent filed an opposition, onthe (round that said provision of the Rules of Court does not appl to a special ad)inistrator, and an inventor had alread

been sub)itted b hi), before said petition for his re)oval $as filed./9!&h:/*;


8/90

propert< 2of respondent and the deceased Di(na Maravilla3 $hich, is per inventor sub)itted b respondent as special

ad)inistrator is valued at P06*,&*&.+. "his theor is untenable. Note that the proceedin(s had on the appoint)ent of

ElieGar opeG as special co4ad)inistrator are )erel incidental to the probate or testate proceedin(s of the deceased Di(na

Maravilla presentl on appeal before the Court of 1ppeals 2C145.R. No. *9&9/4R3 $here petitioners: )otion to elevate the

sa)e to the Supre)e Court, on the (round that the a)ount herein involved is $ithin the latter:s e@clusive 8urisdiction, is still

pendin(, resolution. "hat the Court of 1ppeals has no appellate 8urisdiction over said testate proceedin(s cannot be

doubted, considerin( that the properties therein involved are valued at P06*,&*&,+, as per inventor of the special

ad)inistrator.

!nder Section *, Rule 9', of the Rules of Court, the propert to be ad)inistered and liuidated in testate or intestate

proceedin(s of the deceased spouse is, not onl that part of the con8u(al estate pertainin( to the deceased spouse, but the

entire con8u(al estate. "his Court has alread held that even if the deceased had left no debts, upon the dissolution of the

)arria(e b the death of the husband or $ife, the co))unit propert shall be inventoried, ad)inistered, and liuidated in

the testate or intestate proceedin(s of the deceased spouse 2Vda. de Ro@as v. Pecson, et al., 4**%%, Dece)ber *+, %&/

/* Phil. &+9 see also Vda. de Chanten(co v. Chanten(co, et al., 4%+660, October 0%, %'/3. In a nu)ber of cases $here

appeal $as ta;en fro) an order of a probate court disallo$in( a $ill, this Court, in effect, reco(niGed that the a)ount or

value involved or in controvers therein is that of the entire estate 2Sunta v. Sunta, 40+/9, -ul 0%, %'&, '+ O.5. '0*%

Vano v. Vda. de 5arces, et al., 460+0, -une 0+, %'&, '+ O.5. 0+&'3. Not havin( appellate 8urisdiction over the proceedin(s

in probate 2C145.R. No. *9&9/4R3, considerin( that the a)ount involved therein is )ore than P*++,+++.++, the Court of

1ppeals cannot also have ori(inal 8urisdiction to (rant the $rits of certiorari and prohibition praed for b respondent in the

instant case, $hich are )erel incidental thereto.

In the !nited States, the rule is that


9/90

"he case of >edesma v* Natividad246%%', Ma %+, %'&3 cited b respondent in his brief, is also inapplicable, because

unli;e the instant case, it did not involve a contest in the ad)inistration of the estate.

>hile it is true that uestions of fact have been raised in the probate proceedin(s 2Spec. Proc. No. &99, C?I of Ne(ros

Occidental3 $hich $as appealed b respondent to the Court of 1ppeals, it beco)es i))aterial, in vie$ of Sections %9 and

0% of the -udiciar 1ct of %&/, as a)ended, providin( that the Supre)e Court shall have e@clusive appellate 8urisdiction

over abrador, once&cion, 'eyes, J*?*>*, "aredes, Dion and 'egala, JJ*, concur*

+a@alintal, J*, too@ no &art*

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 12;@1B J&"&r) 2;, 2000

RU3INA U IM,petitioner,vs.

COURT O3 APPEAS, AUTO TRUC T/A CORPORATION, SPEED DISTRI/UTING, INC., ACTI>E DISTRI/UTORS, AIANCEMARETING CORPORATION, ACTION COMPAN, INC.respondents.

/UENA, J.:

Ma a corporation, in its universalit, be the proper sub8ect of and be included in the inventor of the estate of a deceased personH

Petitioner disputes before us throu(h the instant petition for revie$ on certiorari, the decision%of the Court of 1ppeals pro)ul(ated on %/1pril %6, in C145R SP No. 0/6%9, $hich nullified and set aside the orders dated +& -ul %'*, %* Septe)ber %'0and %' Septe)ber%'&of the Re(ional "rial Court of LueGon Cit, #ranch 0, sittin( as a probate court.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt4


10/90

Petitioner Rufina u i) is the survivin( spouse of late Pastor . i) $hose estate is the sub8ect of probate proceedin(s in SpecialProceedin(s L4'4*000&, entitled, herefore, the Re(ister of Deeds of LueGon Cit is hereb ordered to lift, e@pun(e or delete the annotation of lis &endenson"ransfer Certificates of "itle Nos. %%69%6, %%69%9, %%69%/, %%69% and '%/* and it is hereb further ordered that the propertiescovered b the sa)e titles as $ell as those properties b 2sic3 "ransfer Certificate of "itle Nos. 6%0&&, 060%*0, *06*06 and*60*06 are e@cluded fro) these proceedin(s.

SO ORDERED.

Subseuentl, Rufina u i) filed a verified a)ended petition$hich contained the follo$in( aver)ents7

0. "he late Pastor . i) personall o$ned durin( his lifeti)e the follo$in( business entities, to $it7

BusinessEntity

Address:

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

1llianceMar;etin(, Inc.

#loc; 0, ot 6, Dacca #?Ao)es, Paraaue, MetroManila.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Speed

Distributin( Inc.

%+ #arrio Nio(, 1(uinaldo

Ai(h$a, #acoor, Cavite.@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

1uto "ruc;"#1 Corp.

**'% Roosevelt 1venue,LueGon Cit.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

1ctiveDistributors,Inc.

#loc; 0, ot 6, Dacca #?Ao)es, Paraaue, MetroManila.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

1ctionCo)pan

%++ *+th 1venue Murph,LueGon Cit or *4D Mc41rthurAi(h$a ValenGuela #ulacan.

0.% 1lthou(h the above business entities dealt and en(a(ed in business $ith the public as corporations, all their capital,assets and euit $ere ho$ever, personall o$ned b the late Pastor i). Aence the alle(ed stoc;holders andofficers appearin( in the respective articles of incorporation of the above business entities $ere )ere du))ies ofPastor . i), and the $ere listed therein onl for purposes of re(istration $ith the Securities and E@chan(eCo))ission.

&. Pastor i), li;e$ise, had "i)e, Savin(s and Current Deposits $ith the follo$in( ban;s7 2a3 Metroban;, 5race Par;, CaloocanCit and LueGon 1venue, LueGon Cit #ranches and 2b3 ?irst Intestate #an; 2for)erl Producers #an;3, RiGal Co))ercial#an;in( Corporation and in other ban;s $hose identities are et to be deter)ined.

'. "hat the follo$in( real properties, althou(h re(istered in the na)e of the above entities, $ere actuall acuired b Pastor . i)durin( his )arria(e $ith petitioner, to $it7

or&oration Title >ocation

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

;. 1uto "ruc; "C" No. 6%99*6 Sto. Do)in(o "#1Corporation Cainta, RiGal

. 1lliance Mar;etin( "C" No. *9/6 Prance, Metro Manila

Copies of the above4)entioned "ransfer Certificate of "itle and=or "a@ Declarations are hereto attached as 1nne@es


11/90

9. "he afore)entioned properties and=or real interests left b the late Pastor . i), are all con8u(al in nature, havin( beenacuired b hi) durin( the e@istence of his )arria(e $ith petitioner.

/. "here are other real and personal properties o$ned b Pastor . i) $hich petitioner could not as et identif. Petitioner,ho$ever $ill sub)it to this Aonorable Court the identities thereof and the necessar docu)ents coverin( the sa)e as soon aspossible.

On +& -ul %', the Re(ional "rial Court actin( on petitioner:s )otion issued an order%+, thus7

>herefore, the order dated +/ -une %' is hereb set aside and the Re(istr of Deeds of LueGon Cit is hereb directed toreinstate the annotation of lis &endensin case said annotation had alread been deleted and=or cancelled said "C" Nos. %%69%6,%%69%9, %%69%/, %%69% and '%*/*.

?urther )ore 2sic3, said properties covered b "C" Nos. 6%0&&, 06'%*0, *06*'6 and *06*09 b virtue of the petitioner areincluded in the instant petition.

SO ORDERED.

On +& Septe)ber %', the probate court appointed Rufina i) as special ad)inistrator%%and Mi(uel i) and a$er Donald ee, as co4special ad)inistrators of the estate of Pastor . i), after $hich letters of ad)inistration $ere accordin(l issued.

In an order%*dated %* Septe)ber %', the probate court denied ane$ pr ivate respondents: )otion for e@clusion, in this $ise7

"he issue precisel raised b the petitioner in her petition is $hether the corporations are the )ere alter e(os or instru)entalitiesof Pastor i), Other$ise 2sic3 stated, the issue involves the piercin( of the corporate veil, a )atter that is clearl $ithin the8urisdiction of this Aonorable Court and not the Securities and E@chan(e Co))ission. "hus, in the case of ease vs* ourt ofA&&eals, 0 SCR1 &/0, the crucial issue decided b the re(ular court $as $hether the corporation involved therein $as the )eree@tension of the decedent. 1fter findin( in the affir)ative, the Court ruled that the assets of the corporation are also assets of theestate.

1 readin( of P.D. +*, the la$ relied upon b oppositors, sho$s that the SEC:s e@clusive 2sic3 applies onl to intra4corporatecontrovers. It is si)pl a suit to settle the intestate estate of a deceased person $ho, durin( his lifeti)e, acuired severalproperties and put up corporations as his instru)entalities.

SO ORDERED.

On %' Septe)ber %', the probate court actin( on an ex &arte)otion filed b peti tioner, issued an order%0the dispositive portion of $hich

reads7

>herefore, the parties and the follo$in( ban;s concerned herein under enu)erated are hereb ordered to co)pl strictl $ith thisorder and to produce and sub)it to the special ad)inistrators, throu(h this Aonorable Court $ithin 2'3 five das fro) receipt ofthis order their respective records of the savin(s=current accounts=ti)e deposits and other deposits in the na)es of Pastor i)and=or corporations above4)entioned, sho$in( all the transactions )ade or done concernin( savin(s=current accounts fro)-anuar %& up to their receipt of this court order.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

SO ORDERED.

Private respondent filed a special civil action for certiorari%&,$ith an ur(ent praer for a restrainin( order or $rit of preli)inar in8unction,before the Court of 1ppeals uestionin( the orders of the Re(ional "rial Court, sittin( as a probate court.

On %/ 1pril %6, the Court of 1ppeals, findin( in favor of herein private respondents, rendered the assailed decision %',the decretal portion of$hich declares7

>herefore, pre)ises considered, the instant special civil action for certiorariis hereb (ranted, "he i)pu(ned orders issued brespondent court on -ul &, %' and Septe)ber %*, %' are hereb nullified and set aside. "he i)pu(ned order issued brespondent on Septe)ber %', %' is nullified insofar as petitioner corporations< ban; accounts and records are concerned.

SO ORDERED.

"hrou(h the e@pedienc of Rule &' of the Rules of Court, herein petitioner Rufina u i) no$ co)es before us $ith a lone assi(n)ent oferror%67

"he respondent Court of 1ppeals erred in reversin( the orders of the lo$er court $hich )erel allo$ed the preli)inar orprovisional inclusion of the private respondents as part of the estate of the late deceased 2sic3 Pastor . i) $ith the respondentCourt of 1ppeals arro(atin( unto itself the po$er to repeal, to disobe or to i(nore the clear and e@plicit provisions of Rules

/%,/0,/& and /9 of the Rules of Court and thereb preventin( the petitioner, fro) perfor)in( her dut as special ad)inistrator ofthe estate as e@pressl provided in the said Rules.

Petitioner:s contentions tread on perilous (rounds.

In the instant petition for revie$, petitioner pras that $e affir) the orders issued b the probate court $hich $ere subseuentl set aside bthe Court of 1ppeals.

et, before $e delve into the )erits of the case, a revie$ of the rules on 8urisdiction over probate proceedin(s is indeed in order.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt11http://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#fnt12http://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#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt14http://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#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt10http://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


12/90

"he provisions of Republic 1ct 96% %9, $hich introduced a)end)ents to #atas Pa)bansa #l(. %*, are pertinent7

Sec. %. Section % of #atas Pa)bansa #l(. %*, other$ise ;no$n as the e reiterated the rule in "E'E%'A vs. (B'T (C A""EA>S%7

. . . "he function of resolvin( $hether or not a certain propert should be included in the inventor or list of properties to be

ad)inistered b the ad)inistrator is one clearl $ithin the co)petence of the probate court. Ao$ever, the court:s deter)ination isonl provisional in character, not conclusive, and is sub8ect to the final decision in a separate action $hich )a be instituted b theparties.

?urther, in +('A>ES vs. C% (C A=%TE*+citin( B%(N vs. 'A+(>ETE*%,>e )ade an e@position on the probate court:s l i)ited8urisdiction7

It is a $ell4settled rule that a probate court or one in char(e of proceedin(s $hether testate or intestate cannot ad8udicate ordeter)ine title to properties clai)ed to be a part of the estate and $hich are euall clai)ed to belon( to outside parties. 1ll thatthe said court could do as re(ards said properties is to deter)ine $hether the should or should not be included in the inventoror list of properties to be ad)inistered b the ad)inistrator. If there is no dispute, $ell and (ood but if there is, then the parties,the ad)inistrator and the opposin( parties have to resort to an ordinar action for a final deter)ination of the conflictin( clai)s oftitle because the probate court cannot do so.

1(ain, in =A>E'A vs.%NSE'T(**,>e had occasion to elucidate, throu(h Mr. -ustice 1ndres Narvasa*07

Settled is the rule that a Court of ?irst Instance 2no$ Re(ional "rial Court3, actin( as a probate court, e@ercises but li)ited8urisdiction, and thus has no po$er to ta;e co(niGance of and deter)ine the issue of title to propert clai)ed b a third personadversel to the decedent, unless the clai)ant and all other parties havin( le(al interest in the propert consent, e@pressl ori)pliedl, to the sub)ission of the uestion to the probate court for ad8ud()ent, or the interests of third persons are not therebpre8udiced, the reason for the e@ception bein( that the uestion of $hether or not a particular )atter should be resolved b thecourt in the e@ercise of its (eneral 8urisdiction or of its li)ited 8urisdiction as a special court 2e.g. probate, land re(istration, etc.3, isin realit not a 8urisdictional but in essence of procedural one, involvin( a )ode of practice $hich )a be $aived. . . .

. . . . "hese considerations assu)e (reater co(enc $here, as here, the "orrens title is not in the decedent:s na)e but in others, asituation on $hich this Court has alread had occasion to rule . . . . 2e)phasis Ours3
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt23


13/90

Petitioner, in the present case, ar(ues that the parcels of land covered under the "orrens sste) and re(istered in the na)e of privaterespondent corporations should be included in the inventor of the estate of the decedent Pastor . i), alle(in( that after all thedeter)ination b the probate court of $hether these properties should be included or not is )erel provisional in nature, thus, not conclusiveand sub8ect to a final deter)ination in a separate action brou(ht for the purpose of ad8ud(in( once and for all the issue of title.

et, under the peculiar circu)stances, $here the parcels of land are re(istered in the na)e of private respondent corporations, the8urisprudence pronounced in ?(>%SA vs.,A>%D*&is of (reat essence and finds applicabilit, thus7

It does not )atter that respondent4ad)inistratri@ has evidence purportin( to support her clai) of o$nership, for, on the otherhand, petitioners have a "orrens title in their favor, $hich under the la$ is endo$ed $ith incontestabilit until after it has been setaside in the )anner indicated in the la$ itself, $hich of course, does not include, brin(in( up the )atter as a )ere incident inspecial proceedin(s for the settle)ent of the estate of deceased persons. . . .

. . . . In re(ard to such incident of inclusion or e@clusion, >e hold that if a propert covered b "orrens title is involved, thepresu)ptive conclusiveness of such title should be (iven due $ei(ht, and in the absence of stron( co)pellin( evidence to thecontrar, the holder thereof should be considered as the o$ner of the propert in controvers until his tit le is nullified or )odified inan appropriate ordinar action, particularl, $hen as in the case at bar, possession of the propert itself is in the persons na)ed inthe title. . . .

1 perusal of the records $ould reveal that no stron( co)pellin( evidence $as ever presented b petitioner to bolster her bare assertions asto the title of the deceased Pastor . i) over the properties. Even so, P.D. %'*, other$ise ;no$n as, e cate(oricall stated7

. . . Aavin( been apprised of the fact that the propert in uestion $as in the possession of third parties and )ore i)portant,covered b a transfer certificate of title issued in the na)e of such third parties, the respondent court should have denied the)otion of the respondent ad)inistrator and e@cluded the propert in uestion fro) the inventor of the propert of the estate. Ithad no authorit to deprive such third persons of their possession and o$nership of the propert. . . .

Inas)uch as the real properties included in the inventor of the estate of the ate Pastor . i) are in the possession of and are re(istered inthe na)e of private respondent corporations, $hich under the la$ possess a personalit separate and distinct fro) their stoc;holders, and inthe absence of an co(enc to shred the veil of corporate fiction, the presu)ption of conclusiveness of said titles in favor of privaterespondents should stand undisturbed.

1ccordin(l, the probate court $as re)iss in denin( private respondents: )otion for e@clusion. >hile it )a be true that the Re(ional "rialCourt, actin( in a restricted capacit and e@ercisin( li)ited 8urisdiction as a probate court, is co)petent to issue orders involvin( inclusion ore@clusion of certain properties in the inventor of the estate of the decedent, and to ad8ud(e, albeit, provisionall the uestion of title overproperties, it is no less true that such authorit conferred upon b la$ and reinforced b 8urisprudence, should be e@ercised 8udiciousl, $ithdue re(ard and caution to the peculiar ci rcu)stances of each individual case.

Not$ithstandin( that the real properties $ere dul re(istered under the "orrens sste) in the na)e of private respondents, and as such $ereto be afforded the presu)ptive conclusiveness of title, the probate court obviousl opted to shut its ees to this (lea) fact and stillproceeded to issue the i)pu(ned orders.

# its denial of the )otion for e@clusion, the probate court in effect acted in utter disre(ard of the presu)ption of conclusiveness of title infavor of private respondents. Certainl, the probate court throu(h such braGen act trans(ressed the clear provisions of la$ and infrin(edsettled 8urisprudence on this )atter.

Moreover, petitioner ur(es that not onl the properties of private respondent corporations are properl part of the decedent:s estate but alsothe private respondent corporations the)selves. "o rivet such fli)s contention, petitioner cited that the late Pastor . i) durin( his lifeti)e,or(aniGed and $holl4o$ned the five corporations, $hich are the private respondents in the instant case. *'Petitioner thus attached as1nne@es


14/90

Piercin( the veil of corporate entit reuires the court to see throu(h the protective shroud $hich e@e)pts its stoc;holders fro) liabilities thatordinaril, the could be sub8ect to, or distin(uishes one corporation fro) a see)in(l separate one, $ere it not for the e@istin( corporatefiction.0+

"he corporate )as; )a be lifted and the corporate veil )a be pierced $hen a corporation is 8ust but the alter e(o of a person or of anothercorporation. >here bad(es of fraud e@ist, $here public convenience is defeated $here a $ron( is sou(ht to be 8ustified thereb, thecorporate fiction or the notion of le(al entit should co)e to nau(ht.0%

?urther, the test in deter)inin( the applicabilit of the doctrine of piercin( the veil of corporate fiction is as follo$s7 %3 Control, not )ere)a8orit or co)plete stoc; control, but co)plete do)ination, not onl of finances but of polic and business practice in respect to thetransaction attac;ed so that the corporate entit as to this transaction had at the ti)e no separate )ind, $ill or e@istence of its o$n 2*3 Suchcontrol )ust have been used b the defendant to co))it fraud or $ron(, to perpetuate the violation of a statutor or other positive le(al dut,or dishonest and un8ust act in contravention of plaintiffs le(al ri(ht and 203 "he aforesaid control and breach of dut )ust pro@i)atel causethe in8ur or un8ust loss co)plained of. "he absence of an of these ele)ents prevent E ?ANF AND T'BST (+"AN vs. >E(N%DAS0'finds pertinence7

1ffidavits are classified as hearsa evidence since the are not (enerall prepared b the affiant but b another $ho uses his o$nlan(ua(e in $ritin( the affiant:s state)ents, $hich )a thus be either o)itted or )isunderstood b the one $ritin( the).Moreover, the adverse part is deprived of the opportunit to cross4e@a)ine the affiants. ?or this reason, affidavits are (enerallre8ected for bein( hearsa, unless the affiant the)selves are placed on the $itness stand to testif thereon.

1s to the order06of the lo$er court, dated %' Septe)ber %', the Court of 1ppeals correctl observed that the Re(ional "rial Court, #ranch0 acted $ithout 8urisdiction in issuin( said order "he probate court had no authorit to de)and the production of ban; accounts in the na)eof the private respondent corporations.

>AERE?ORE, in vie$ of the fore(oin( disuisitions, the instant petition is hereb DISMISSED for lac; of )erit and the decision of the Courtof 1ppeals $hich nullified and set aside the orders issued b the Re(ional "rial Court, #ranch 0, actin( as a probate court, dated +& -ul%' and %* Septe)ber %' is 1??IRMED./0!&hi/*nt

SO ORDERED.

?ellosillo, +endoa, Guisumbing and De >eon, Jr*, JJ*, concur.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

"AIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 1@; 3ebr&r) , 200@

EDGAR SAN UIS, Petitioner,

vs.

3EICIDAD SAN UIS, Respondent.

@ 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 @

G.R. No. 1;029 3ebr&r) , 200@

RODO3O SAN UIS, Petitioner,vs.

3EICIDAD SAGAONGOS &!&$ 3EICIDAD SAN UIS, Respondent.

D E % S % ( N

NARES?SANTIAGO, J.:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_124715_2000.html#fnt36


15/90

#efore us are consolidated petitions for revie$ assailin( the ?ebruar &, %/ Decision%of the Court of 1ppeals in C145.R. CV No. '*6&9,

$hich reversed and set aside the Septe)ber %*, %'*and -anuar 0%, %6 0Resolutions of the Re(ional "rial Court of Ma;ati Cit, #ranch

%0& in SP. Proc. No. M409+/ and its Ma %', %/ Resolution&denin( petitioners )otion for reconsideration.

"he instant case involves the settle)ent of the estate of ?elicisi)o ". San uis 2?elicisi)o3, $ho $as the for)er (overnor of the Province of

a(una. Durin( his lifeti)e, ?elicisi)o contracted three )arria(es. Ais first )arria(e $as $ith Vir(inia Sulit on March %9, %&* out of $hich

$ere born si@ children, na)el7 Rodolfo, Mila, Ed(ar, inda, E)ilita and Manuel. On 1u(ust %%, %60, Vir(inia predeceased ?elicisi)o.

?ive ears later, on Ma %, %6/, ?elicisi)o )arried Merr ee Cor$in, $ith $ho) he had a son, "obias. Ao$ever, on October %', %9%,

Merr ee, an 1)erican citiGen, filed a Co)plaint for Divorce'before the ?a)il Court of the ?irst Circuit, State of Aa$aii, !nited States of

1)erica 2!.S.1.3, $hich issued a Decree 5rantin( 1bsolute Divorce and 1$ardin( Child Custod on Dece)ber %&, %90.6

On -une *+, %9&, ?elicisi)o )arried respondent ?elicidad San uis, then surna)ed Sa(alon(os, before Rev. ?r. >illia) Meer, Minister of

the !nited Presbterian at >ilshire #oulevard, os 1n(eles, California, !.S.1.9Ae had no children $ith respondent but lived $ith her for %/

ears fro) the ti)e of their )arria(e up to his death on Dece)ber %/, %*.

"hereafter, respondent sou(ht the dissolution of their con8u(al partnership assets and the settle)ent of ?elicisi)os estate. On Dece)ber %9,

%0, she filed a petition for letters of ad)inistration/before the Re(ional "rial Court of Ma;ati Cit, doc;eted as SP. Proc. No. M409+/ $hich

$as raffled to #ranch %&6 thereof.

Respondent alle(ed that she is the $ido$ of ?elicisi)o that, at the ti)e of his death, the decedent $as residin( at %++ San -uanico Street,

Ne$ 1laban( Villa(e, 1laban(, Metro Manila that the decedents survivin( heirs are respondent as le(al spouse, his si@ children b his first)arria(e, and son b his second )arria(e that the decedent left real properties, both con8u(al and e@clusive, valued at P0+,0+&,%9/.++

)ore or less that the decedent does not have an unpaid debts. Respondent praed that the con8u(al partnership assets be l iuidated and

that letters of ad)inistration be issued to her.

On ?ebruar &, %&, petitioner Rodolfo San uis, one of the children of ?elicisi)o b his first )arria(e, filed a )otion to dis)isson the

(rounds of i)proper venue and failure to state a cause of action. Rodolfo clai)ed that the petition for letters of ad)inistration should have

been filed in the Province of a(una because this $as ?elicisi)os place of residence prior to his death. Ae further clai)ed that respondent

has no le(al personalit to file the petition because she $as onl a )istress of ?elicisi)o since the latter, at the ti)e of his death, $as still

le(all )arried to Merr ee.

On ?ebruar %', %&, inda invo;ed the sa)e (rounds and 8oined her brother Rodolfo in see;in( the dis)issal %+of the petition. On

?ebruar */, %&, the trial court issued an Order%%denin( the t$o )otions to dis)iss.

!na$are of the denial of the )otions to dis)iss, respondent filed on March ', %& her opposition%*

thereto. She sub)itted docu)entarevidence sho$in( that $hile ?elicisi)o e@ercised the po$ers of his public office in a(una, he re(ularl $ent ho)e to their house in Ne$

1laban( Villa(e, 1laban(, Metro Manila $hich the bou(ht so)eti)e in %/*. ?urther, she presented the decree of absolute divorce issued

b the ?a)il Court of the ?irst Circuit, State of Aa$aii to prove that the )arria(e of ?elicisi)o to Merr ee had alread been dissolved.

"hus, she clai)ed that ?elicisi)o had the le(al capacit to )arr her b virtue of para(raph *, %01rticle *6 of the ?a)il Code and the

doctrine laid do$n in Van Dorn v. Ro)illo, -r.%&

"hereafter, inda, Rodolfo and herein petitioner Ed(ar San uis, separatel fi led )otions for reconsideration fro) the Order denin( their

)otions to dis)iss. %'"he asserted that para(raph *, 1rticle *6 of the ?a)il Code cannot be (iven retroactive effect to validate

respondents bi(a)ous )arria(e $ith ?elicisi)o because this $ould i)pair vested ri(hts in dero(ation of 1rticle *'6%6of the ?a)il Code.

On 1pril *%, %&, Mila, another dau(hter of ?elicisi)o fro) his first )arr ia(e, filed a )otion to disualif 1ctin( Presidin( -ud(e 1nthon E.

Santos fro) hearin( the case.

On October *&, %&, the trial court issued an Order%9denin( the )otions for reconsideration. It ruled that respondent, as $ido$ of the

decedent, possessed the le(al standin( to file the petition and that venue $as properl laid. Mean$hile, the )otion for disualification $as

dee)ed )oot and acade)ic %/because then 1ctin( Presidin( -ud(e Santos $as substituted b -ud(e Salvador S. "ensuan pendin( the

resolution of said )otion.

Mila filed a )otion for inhibition%a(ainst -ud(e "ensuan on Nove)ber %6, %&. On even date, Ed(ar also filed a )otion for

reconsideration*+fro) the Order denin( their )otion for reconsideration ar(uin( that it does not state the facts and la$ on $hich it $as

based.

On Nove)ber *', %&, -ud(e "ensuan issued an Order*%(rantin( the )otion for inhibition. "he case $as re4raffled to #ranch %0& presided

b -ud(e Paul ". 1rcan(el.

On 1pril *&, %',**the trial court reuired the parties to sub)it their respective position papers on the t$in issues of venue and le(al

capacit of respondent to file the petition. On Ma ', %', Ed(ar )anifested *0that he is adoptin( the ar(u)ents and evidence set forth in

his previous )otion for reconsideration as his position paper. Respondent and Rodolfo filed their position papers on -une %&, *&and -une

*+,*'%', respectivel.

On Septe)ber %*, %', the trial court dis)issed the petition for letters of ad)inistration. It held that, at the ti)e of his death, ?elicisi)o $as

the dul elected (overnor and a resident of the Province of a(una. Aence, the petition should have been filed in Sta. CruG, a(una and not

in Ma;ati Cit. It also ruled that respondent $as $ithout le(al capacit to file the petition for letters of ad)inistration because her )arria(e

$ith ?elicisi)o $as bi(a)ous, thus, void ab initio. It found that the decree of absolute divorce dissolvin( ?elicisi)os )arria(e to Merr ee

$as not valid in the Philippines and did not bind ?elicisi)o $ho $as a ?ilipino citiGen. It also ruled that para(raph *, 1rticle *6 of the ?a)il

Code cannot be retroactivel applied because it $ould i)pair the vested ri(hts of ?elicisi)os le(iti)ate children.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_133743_2007.html#fnt25


16/90

Respondent )oved for reconsideration*6and for the disualification*9of -ud(e 1rcan(el but said )otions $ere denied.*/

Respondent appealed to the Court of 1ppeals $hich reversed and set aside the orders of the trial court in its assailed Decision dated

?ebruar &, %/, the dispositive portion of $hich states7

>AERE?ORE, the Orders dated Septe)ber %*, %' and -anuar 0%, %6 are hereb REVERSED and SE" 1SIDE the Orders dated

?ebruar */ and October *&, %& are REINS"1"ED and the records of the case is REM1NDED to the trial court for further proceedin(s. *

"he appellante court ruled that under Section %, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, the ter)


17/90

do)icile provided he resides therein $ith continuit and consistenc. &0Aence, it is possible that a person )a have his residence in one

place and do)icile in another.

In the instant case, $hile petitioners established that ?elicisi)o $as do)iciled in Sta. CruG, a(una, respondent proved that he also

)aintained a residence in 1laban(, Muntinlupa fro) %/* up to the ti)e of his death. Respondent sub)itted in evidence the Deed of

1bsolute Sale&&dated -anuar ', %/0 sho$in( that the deceased purchased the aforesaid propert. She also presented billin(

state)ents &'fro) the Philippine Aeart Center and Chinese 5eneral Aospital for the period 1u(ust to Dece)ber %* indicatin( the address

of ?elicisi)o at hen the la$ provides, in the nature of a penalt,

that the (uilt part shall not )arr a(ain, that part, as $ell as the other, is still absolutel freed fro) the bond of the for)er )arria(e.ith re(ard to respondents )arria(e to ?elicisi)o alle(edl sole)niGed in California, !.S.1., she sub)itted photocopies of the Marria(e

Certificate and the annotated te@t 9*of the ?a)il a$ 1ct of California $hich purportedl sho$ that their )arria(e $as done in accordance

$ith the said la$. 1s stated in .arcia, ho$ever, the Court cannot ta;e 8udicial notice of forei(n la$s as the )ust be alle(ed and proved. 90

"herefore, this case should be re)anded to the trial court for further reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained b Merr ee and

the )arria(e of respondent and ?elicisi)o.

Even assu)in( that ?elicisi)o $as not capacitated to )arr respondent in %9&, nevertheless, $e find that the latter has the le(alpersonalit to file the sub8ect petition for letters of ad)inistration, as she )a be considered the co4o$ner of ?elicisi)o as re(ards the

properties that $ere acuired throu(h their 8oint efforts durin( their cohabitation.

Section 6,9&Rule 9/ of the Rules of Court states that letters of ad)inistration )a be (ranted to the survivin( spouse of the decedent.

Ao$ever, Section *, Rule 9 thereof also provides in part7

SEC. *. Contents of petition for letters of ad)inistration. 1 petition for letters of ad)inistration )ust be filed b an interested person and

)ust sho$, as far as ;no$n to the petitioner7 @ @ @.

1n


20/90


SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. ?BBB09 A'r! 2@, 198;

ETHE GRIMM RO/ERTS, petitioner,

vs.

JUDGE TOMAS R. EONIDAS, /r&"%# 8, Cor( o- 3!r$( I"$(&"%e o- M&"!& MAFINE TATE?GRIMM, EDWARD MIER GRIMM II &"*

INDA GRIMM, respondents.

N* J* Guisumbing and Associates for &etitioners*

Angara, Abello, once&cion, 'egala and ru for res&ondents*

AUINO, J.:+.w!"#

"he uestion in this case is $hether a petition for allo$ance of $ills and to annul a partition, approved in an intestateproceedin( b ?ranch

32 of the Manila Court of ?irst Instance, can be entertained b its ?ranch 7H 2after a probate in the !tah district court3.

Antecedents. Ed$ard M. 5ri)) an 1)erican resident of Manila, died at 9/ in the Ma;ati Medical Center on Nove)ber *9, %99. Ae $as

survived b his second $ife, Ma@ine "ate 5ri)) and their t$o children, na)ed Ed$ard Miller 5ri)) II 2Pete3 and inda 5ri)) and b-uanita 5ri)) Morris and Ethel 5ri)) Roberts 2Mc?adden3, his t$o children b a first )arria(e $hich ended in divorce 2Sub41nne@es 1 and

#. pp. 064&9, Rollo3.

Ae e@ecuted on -anuar *0, %' t!o !illsin San ?rancisco, California. One $ill disposed of his Philippine estate $hich he described as

con8u(al propert of hi)self and his second $ife. "he second $in disposed of his estate outside the Philippines.

In both $ills, the second $ife and t$o children $ere favored. "he t$o children of the first marriage$ere (iven their le(iti)es in the $ill

disposin( of the estate situated in this countr. In the $ill dealin( $ith his propert outside this countr, the testator said7 t;*Ih1!0I

I purposel have )ade no provision in this $ill for ) dau(hter, -uanita 5ri)) Morr is, or ) dau(hter, Elsa 5ri))

Mc?adden 2Ethel 5ri)) Roberts3, because I have provided for each of the) in a separate $ill disposin( of )

Philippine propert. 2?irst clause, pp. &04&9, Rollo3.

"he t$o $ills and a codicil $ere presented for probate b Ma@ine "ate 5ri)) and E. aVar "ate on March 9, %9/ in Probate No. 09*+ of the

"hird -udicial District Court of "ooele Count, !tah. -uanita 5ri)) Morris of Cupertino, California and Mrs. Roberts of %' C. #eniteG Street,

Aorseshoe Villa(e, LueGon Cit $ere notified of the probate proceedin( 2Sub41nne@ C, pp. &/4'', Rollo3.

Ma@ine ad)itted that she received notice of the intestate &etition filed in Manila b Ethel in -anuar, %9/ 2p. '0, Rollo3. In its order dated

1pril %+, %9/, the "hird -udicial District Court ad)itted to &robate the t$o $ills and the codicil It $as issued upon consideration of

the sti&ulation dated A&ril K, /86H


21/90

%ntestate &roceeding No* //723K.41t this 8uncture, it should be stated that fort4 three das after 5ri)):s death, or -anuar , %9/, his

dau(hter of the first )arr ia(e, Ethel, &, throu(h la$ers Deo(racias ". Rees and. 5erardo #. Macarae(, filed $ith #ranch *+ of the Manila

Court of ?irst Instance intestate &roceeding No* //723Kfor the settle)ent of his estate. She $as na)ed special ad)inistratri@.

On March %%, the second $ife, Ma@ine, throu(h the 1n(ara la$ office, filed an o&&osition and motion to dismiss the intestate &roceedingon

the (round of the pendenc of !tah of a proceedin( for the probate of 5ri)):s $ill. She also )oved that she be appointed special

ad)inistratri@, She sub)itted to the court a cop of 5ri)):s $ill disposin( of his Philippine estate. It is found in pa(es '/ to 6& of the record.

"he intestate court in its orders of Ma *0 and -une * noted that Ma@ine, throu(h a ne$ la$er, >illia) C. i)ueco 2partner of 5erardo #.

Macarae(, p. 9/, testate case $ithdre$ that opposition and )otion to dis)iss and, at the behest of Ma@ine, Ethel and Pete, appointed the)

8oint ad)inistrators. 1pparentl, this $as done pursuant to the afore)entioned !tah co)pro)ise a(ree)ent. The court ignored the !ill

already found in the record*

"he three ad)inistrators sub)itted an inventor. >ith the authorit and approval of the court, the sold for P9',+++ on March *%, %9 the

so4called Pala$an Pearl Pro8ect, a business o$ned b the deceased. inda and -uanita alle(edl confor)ed $ith the sale 2pp. %*+4%*,

Record3. It turned out that the buer, Ma;ilin( Mana(e)ent Co., Inc., $as incorporated b Ethel and her husband, Re@ Roberts, and b

la$er i)ueco 21nne@ , p. +, testate case3.

1lso $ith the court:s approval and the consent of inda and -uanita, the sold for P%,'&6,%06 to -oseph Server and others %0,*69 shares of

R?M Corporation 2p. %0', Record3.

1ctin( on the declaration of heirs and pro8ect of partition si(ned and filed b la$ers i)ueco and Macarae( 2not si(ned b Ma@ine and hert$o children3, -ud(e Conrado M. Molina in his order of -ul *9, %9 ad8udicated to Ma@ine onehalf 2&=/3 of the decedent:s Philippine estate

and one4ei(hth 2%=/3 each to his four children or %*4%=*B 2pp. %&+4%&*, Record3. No )ention at all $as )ade of the $ill in that order.

Si@ das later, or on 1u(ust *, Ma@ine and her t$o children re&laced >im1ueco !ith (ctavio del allar as their la!yer

$ho on 1u(ust ,

)oved to defer approval of the pro8ect of partition. "he court considered the )otion )oot considerin( that it had alread approved the

declaration of heirs and pro8ect of partition 2p. %&, Record3.

a$er i)ueco in a letter to Ma@ine dated 1u(ust *, %9 alle(ed that he $as no lon(er connected $ith Ma;ilin( Mana(e)ent Co., Inc.

$hen the Pala$an Pearl Pro8ect $as sold7 that it $as Ma@ine:s son Pete $ho ne(otiated the sale $ith Re@ Roberts and that he 2i)ueco3

$as (oin( to sue Ma@ine for the lies she i)puted to hi) 21nne@ A, p. 9/, testate case3.

Ethel sub)itted to the court a certification of the 1ssistant Co))issioner of Internal Revenue dated October *, %9. It $as stated therein

that Ma@ine paid P%,*,*00.6 as estate ta@ and penalties and that he interposed no ob8ection to the transfer of the estate to 5ri)):s heirs

2p. %'0, Record3. "he court noted the certification as in confor)it $ith its order of -ul *9, %9.

1fter Nove)ber, %9 or for a&eriod of more than five months,there $as no )ove)ent or activit in the intestate case. On 1pril %/, %/+

-uanita 5ri)) Morris, throu(h Ethel:s la$ers, filed a )otion for accountin(


22/90

Ethel )a file $ithin t$ent das fro) notice of the f inalit of this 8ud()ent an opposition and ans$er to the petition unless she considers her

)otion to dis)iss and other pleadin(s sufficient for the purpose. -uanita 5. Morris, $ho appeared in the intestate case, should be served

$ith copies of orders, notices and other papers in the testate case.

>AERE?ORE the petition is dis)issed. "he te)porar restrainin( order is dissolved. No costs.

SO ORDERED./9!&h:/*;ISION, MANUE CUENCO, OURDES CUENCO, CONCEPCION CUENCO

MANGUERRA, CARMEN CUENCO, CONSUEO CUENCO REES, &"* TERESITA CUENCO GONAE, respondents.

Ambrosio "adilla >a! (ffice for &etitioner*

Jalandoni and Jamir for res&ondents*

TEEHANEE, J.:

Petition for certiorari

to revie$ the decision of respondent Court of 1ppeals in C145.R. No. 0&%+&4R, pro)ul(ated *% Nove)ber %6&, and

its subseuent Resolution pro)ul(ated / -ul %6& denin( petitioner:s Motion for Reconsideration.

"he

spec proc cases

Documents