9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

be taking advantage of his position as an employee of the

Judiciary.
SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and

Brion, JJ., concur.

Dominador Monesit, Sr. reprimanded for failure to pay

just debt, with warning to be more circumspect and avoid
acts which may be perceived to be taking advantage of his
position.

Notes.—The withdrawal or desistance of a complainant

from pursuing an administrative complaint does not divest
the Court of its disciplinary authority over court personnel.
(Bajar vs. Baterisna, 499 SCRA 629 [2006])
In administrative cases, the object is not retribution for
the complainant but rather the preservation of the
integrity and competence of the Judiciary by policing its
ranks and enforcing discipline among its erring employees.
(LBC Bank Vigan Branch vs. Guzman, 510 SCRA 28
[2006])

——o0o——

G.R. No. 162956. April 10, 2008.*

FAUSTINO REYES, ESPERIDION REYES, JULIETA C.

RIVERA, and EUTIQUIO DICO, JR., petitioners, vs.
PETER B. ENRIQUEZ, for himself and Attorney-in-Fact of
his daughter DEBORAH ANN C. ENRIQUEZ, and SPS.
DIONISIO FERNANDEZ and CATALINA FERNANDEZ,
respondents.

Actions; Succession; A person must first institute a special

proceeding to determine his status as an heir before he can file an
ordi-

_______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

* FIRST DIVISION.

87

VOL. 551, APRIL 10, 2008 87

Reyes vs. Enriquez

nary civil action to nullify certain instruments pertaining to the

property of the decedent.—The primary issue in this case is
whether or not the respondents have to institute a special
proceeding to determine their status as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera
before they can file an ordinary civil action to nullify the affidavits
of Anacleto Cabrera and Dionisia Reyes, the Extra-Judicial
Settlement with the Sale of Estate of Dionisia Reyes, and the
Deed of Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of Sale
executed by the heirs of Dionisia Reyes and the heirs of Anacleto
Cabrera, as well as to cancel the new transfer certificates of title
issued by virtue of the above-questioned documents. We answer in
the affirmative.
Same; Same; Parties; Words and Phrases; A plaintiff is a real
party in interest when he is the one who has a legal right to enforce
or protect, while a defendant is a real party in interest when he is
the one who has a correlative legal obligation to redress a wrong
done to the plaintiff by reason of the defendant’s act or omission
which had violated the legal right of the former; The purpose of the
rule that only a real party in interest is allowed to prosecute and
defend an action in court is to protect against undue and
unnecessary litigation.—An ordinary civil action is one by which a
party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or
the prevention or redress of a wrong. A special proceeding, on the
other hand, is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right or a particular fact. The Rules of Court provide
that only a real party in interest is allowed to prosecute and
defend an action in court. A real party in interest is the one who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or
the one entitled to the avails thereof. Such interest, to be
considered a real interest, must be one which is present and
substantial, as distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future,
contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. A plaintiff is a
real party in interest when he is the one who has a legal right to
enforce or protect, while a defendant is a real party in interest
when he is the one who has a correlative legal obligation to
redress a wrong done to the plaintiff by reason of the defendant’s
act or omission which had violated the legal right of the former.
The purpose of the rule is to protect persons against undue and
unnecessary litigation. It likewise ensures that the court will have
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

the benefit of having before it the real adverse parties in the

consideration of a case. Thus, a plaintiff’s right to institute an
ordinary civil action should be based on his own right to the relief
sought.

88

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reyes vs. Enriquez

Same; Same; A declaration of heirship is improper in an

ordinary civil action since the matter is within the exclusive
competence of the court in a special proceeding.—In cases wherein
alleged heirs of a decedent in whose name a property was
registered sue to recover the said property through the institution
of an ordinary civil action, such as a complaint for reconveyance
and partition, or nullification of transfer certificate of titles and
other deeds or documents related thereto, this Court has
consistently ruled that a declaration of heirship is improper in an
ordinary civil action since the matter is “within the exclusive
competence of the court in a special proceeding.”
Same; Same; Even if a declaration of heirship was not prayed
for in the complaint but it is clear from the allegations therein that
the right a party sought to protect or enforce is that of an heir of
one of the registered co-owners of the property prior to the issuance
of the new transfer certificates of title that he seeks to cancel, then
there is a need to establish his status as such heir in the proper
forum.—In the same manner, the respondents herein, except for
their allegations, have yet to substantiate their claim as the legal
heirs of Anacleto Cabrera who are, thus, entitled to the subject
property. Neither is there anything in the records of this case
which would show that a special proceeding to have themselves
declared as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera had been instituted. As
such, the trial court correctly dismissed the case for there is a lack
of cause of action when a case is instituted by parties who are not
real parties in interest. While a declaration of heirship was not
prayed for in the complaint, it is clear from the allegations therein
that the right the respondents sought to protect or enforce is that
of an heir of one of the registered co-owners of the property prior
to the issuance of the new transfer certificates of title that they
seek to cancel. Thus, there is a need to establish their status as
such heirs in the proper forum.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Melencio L. Sarona for petitioners.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

   Nicolas V. Benedicto, Jr. for respondent.

89

VOL. 551, APRIL 10, 2008 89

Reyes vs. Enriquez

PUNO, C.J.:

This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under

Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court from the decision of
the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 29, 2003 in CA-
G.R. CV No. 68147, entitled “Peter B. Enriquez, et al. v.
Faustino Reyes, et al.,” reversing the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch XI dated
June 29, 2000, which dismissed the complaint filed by the
respondents herein.1
The subject matter of the present case is a parcel of land
known as Lot No. 1851 Flr-133 with an aggregate area of
2,017 square meters located in Talisay, Cebu.2
According to petitioners Faustino Reyes, Esperidion
Reyes, Julieta C. Rivera, and Eutiquio Dico, Jr., they are
the lawful heirs of Dionisia Reyes who co-owned the subject
parcel of land with Anacleto Cabrera as evidenced by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-3551 (T-8070).
On April 17, 1996, petitioners executed an Extrajudicial
Settlement with Sale of the Estate of Dionisia Reyes (the
Extrajudicial Settlement) involving a portion of the subject
parcel of land. On March 21, 1997, the petitioners and the
known heirs of Anacleto Cabrera executed a Segregation of
Real Estate and Confirmation of Sale (the Segregation and
Confirmation) over the same property. By virtue of the
aforestated documents, TCT No. RT-35551 (T-8070) was
cancelled and new TCTs were issued: (1) TCT No. T-98576
in the name of Anacleto Cabrera covering Lot 1851-A; (2)
TCT No. T-98577 covering Lot 1851-B in the name of
petitioner Eutiquio Dico, Jr.; (3) TCT No. T-98578 covering
Lot 1851-C in the name of petitioner Faustino Reyes; (4)
TCT No. T-98579 covering Lot 1851-D in the name of
petitioner Esperidion Reyes; (5) TCT No. T-98580 covering
Lot 1851-E in the name of petitioner Julieta G. Rivera; (6)
TCT No. T-98581 covering Lot 1851-F in the name of Felipe
Dico;

_______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

1 Rollo, p. 10.
2 Id., at p. 88.

90

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reyes vs. Enriquez

and (7) TCT No. T-98582 covering Lot 1851-G in the name
of Archimedes C. Villaluz.3
Respondents Peter B. Enriquez (Peter) for himself and
on behalf of his minor daughter Deborah Ann C. Enriquez
(Deborah Ann), also known as Dina Abdullah Enriquez
Alsagoff, on the other hand, alleges that their predecessor-
in-interest Anacleto Cabrera and his wife Patricia Seguera
Cabrera (collectively the Spouses Cabrera) owned ½ pro
indiviso share in the subject parcel of land or 1051 sq. m.
They further allege that Spouses Cabrera were survived by
two daughters—Graciana, who died single and without
issue, and Etta, the wife of respondent Peter and mother of
respondent Deborah Ann—who succeeded their parents’
rights and took possession of the 1051 sq. m. of the subject
parcel of land. During her lifetime, Graciana sold her share
over the land to Etta. Thus, making the latter the sole
owner of the one-half share of the subject parcel of land.
Subsequently, Etta died and the property passed on to
petitioners Peter and Deborah Ann by virtue of an
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate. On June 19, 1999,
petitioners Peter and Deborah Ann sold 200 sq. m. out of
the 1051 sq. m. for P200,000.00 to Spouses Dionisio and
Catalina Fernandez (Spouses Fernandez), also their co-
respondents in the case at bar. After the sale, Spouses
Fernandez took possession of the said area in the subject
parcel of land.4
When Spouses Fernandez, tried to register their share
in the subject land, they discovered that certain documents
prevent them from doing so: (1) Affidavit by Anacleto
Cabrera dated March 16, 1957 stating that his share in Lot
No. 1851, the subject property, is approximately 369 sq. m.;
(2) Affidavit by Dionisia Reyes dated July 13, 1929 stating
that Anacleto only owned ¼ of Lot No. 1851, while 302.55
sq. m. belongs to Dionisia and the rest of the property is co-
owned by Nicolasa Bacalso, Juan Reyes, Florentino Reyes
and Maximiano Dico;

_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

3 Id., at pp. 12-13.

4 Id., at pp. 88-89.

91

VOL. 551, APRIL 10, 2008 91

Reyes vs. Enriquez

(3) Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of the Estate of

Dionisia Reyes dated April 17, 1996; (4) certificates of title
in the name of the herein petitioners; and (5) Deed of
Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of Sale dated
March 21, 1997 executed by the alleged heirs of Dionisia
Reyes and Anacleto Cabrera. Alleging that the foregoing
documents are fraudulent and fictitious, the respondents
filed a complaint for annulment or nullification of the
aforementioned documents and for damages.5 They
likewise prayed for the “repartition and resubdivision” of
the subject property.6
The RTC, upon motion of the herein petitioners,
dismissed the case on the ground that the respondents-
plaintiffs were actually seeking first and foremost to be
declared heirs of Anacleto Cabrera since they can not
demand the partition of the real property without first
being declared as legal heirs and such may not be done in
an ordinary civil action, as in this case, but through a
special proceeding specifically instituted for the purpose.7
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC
and directed the trial court to proceed with the hearing of
the case.8 The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
herein petitioners was similarly denied.9
Hence this petition.
The primary issue in this case is whether or not the
respondents have to institute a special proceeding to
determine their status as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera before
they can file an ordinary civil action to nullify the affidavits
of Anacleto Cabrera and Dionisia Reyes, the Extra-Judicial
Settlement with the Sale of Estate of Dionisia Reyes, and
the Deed of Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of
Sale executed

_______________

5 Id., at pp. 89-90.

6 Id., at p. 34.
7 Id., at pp. 43-44.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

8 Id., at pp. 20-26.

9 Id., at pp. 28-29.

92

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reyes vs. Enriquez

by the heirs of Dionisia Reyes and the heirs of Anacleto

Cabrera, as well as to cancel the new transfer certificates of
title issued by virtue of the above-questioned documents.
We answer in the affirmative.
An ordinary civil action is one by which a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong.10 A special proceeding, on
the other hand, is a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right or a particular fact.11
The Rules of Court provide that only a real party in
interest is allowed to prosecute and defend an action in
court.12 A real party in interest is the one who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the one
entitled to the avails thereof.13 Such interest, to be
considered a real interest, must be one which is present
and substantial, as distinguished from a mere expectancy,
or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential
interest.14 A plaintiff is a real party in interest when he is
the one who has a legal right to enforce or protect, while a
defendant is a real party in interest when he is the one who
has a correlative legal obligation to redress a wrong done to
the plaintiff by reason of the defendant’s act or omission
which had violated the legal right of the former.15 The
purpose of the rule is to protect persons against undue and
unnecessary litigation.16 It likewise ensures that the court
will have the benefit of having before it the real adverse
par-

_______________

10 Sec. 1 (a), Rule 1, Rules of Court.

11 Id., at Sec. 1(c), Rule 1.
12 Id., at Sec. 2, Rule 3.
13 Id.
14  Ibonilla v. Province of Cebu, G.R. No. 97463, June 26, 1992, 210
SCRA 526 citing Garcia v. David, 67 Phil. 279 (1939).
15 Id., citing Lee v. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-60937, May 28, 1988, 161
SCRA 589.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

16  Fajardo v. Freedom to Build, Inc., 400 Phil. 1272; 337 SCRA 115
(2000) citing Moore v. Jamieson, 45L Pa 299, 306 A2d 283.

93

VOL. 551, APRIL 10, 2008 93

Reyes vs. Enriquez

ties in the consideration of a case.17 Thus, a plaintiff’s right

to institute an ordinary civil action should be based on his
own right to the relief sought.
In cases wherein alleged heirs of a decedent in whose
name a property was registered sue to recover the said
property through the institution of an ordinary civil action,
such as a complaint for reconveyance and partition,18 or
nullification of transfer certificate of titles and other deeds
or documents related thereto,19 this Court has consistently
ruled that a declaration of heirship is improper in an
ordinary civil action since the matter is “within the
exclusive competence of the court in a special proceeding.”20
In the recent case of Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran,21 the
Court had the occasion to clarify its ruling on the issue at
hand, to wit:

“The common doctrine in Litam, Solivio and Guilas in which

the adverse parties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent
or parties to the special proceedings for its settlement is that if
the special proceedings are pending, or if there are no special
proceedings filed but there is, under the circumstances of
the case, a need to file one, then the determination of,
among other issues, heirship should be raised and settled
in said special proceedings. Where special proceedings had
been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated,
however, or if a putative heir has lost the right to have himself
declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and he can no longer
ask for its re-opening, then an ordinary civil action can be filed for
his declaration as heir in order to bring about the annulment of
the partition or

_______________

17 Id. citing Washakie Country School Dist. v. Herschier, (Wyo) 606 P2d 310
cert. den. 449 U.S. 824, 66 L. Ed. 2d 28, 101 S. Ct. 86.
18 Solivio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990, 182 SCRA
119 (1990).
19 Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, G.R. No. 155555, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA
184.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

20 Litam, etc., et al. v. Rivera, 100 Phil. 364 (1956).

21 Supra note 19.

94

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reyes vs. Enriquez

distribution or adjudication of a property or properties belonging

to the estate of the deceased.”22

In the instant case, while the complaint was

denominated as an action for the “Declaration of Non-
Existency[sic], Nullity of Deeds, and Cancellation of
Certificates of Title, etc.,” a review of the allegations
therein reveals that the right being asserted by the
respondents are their right as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera
who they claim co-owned one-half of the subject property
and not merely one-fourth as stated in the documents the
respondents sought to annul. As correctly pointed out by
the trial court, the ruling in the case of Heirs of Guido
Yaptinchay v. Hon. Roy del Rosario23 is applicable in
the case at bar. In the said case, the petitioners therein,
claiming to be the legal heirs of the late Guido and Isabel
Yaptinchay filed for annulment of the transfer certificates
of title issued in the name of Golden Bay Realty
Corporation on the ground that the subject properties
rightfully belong to the petitioners’ predecessor and by
virtue of succession have passed on to them. In affirming
the trial court therein, this Court ruled:

“...(T)he plaintiffs who claimed to be the legal heirs of the said

Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay have not shown any proof or even a
semblance of it—except the allegations that they are the legal
heirs of the aforementioned Yaptinchays—that they have been
declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple. Now, the
determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple
must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not
in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. This must take
precedence over the action for reconveyance.”24

In the same manner, the respondents herein, except for

their allegations, have yet to substantiate their claim as
the

_______________

22 Id; emphases supplied.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

23 Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay v. Hon. Roy del Rosario, G.R. No. 124320,
March 2, 1999, 304 SCRA 18.
24 Id.

95

VOL. 551, APRIL 10, 2008 95

Reyes vs. Enriquez

legal heirs of Anacleto Cabrera who are, thus, entitled to

the subject property. Neither is there anything in the
records of this case which would show that a special
proceeding to have themselves declared as heirs of Anacleto
Cabrera had been instituted. As such, the trial court
correctly dismissed the case for there is a lack of cause of
action when a case is instituted by parties who are not real
parties in interest. While a declaration of heirship was not
prayed for in the complaint, it is clear from the allegations
therein that the right the respondents sought to protect or
enforce is that of an heir of one of the registered co-owners
of the property prior to the issuance of the new transfer
certificates of title that they seek to cancel. Thus, there is a
need to establish their status as such heirs in the proper
forum.
Furthermore, in Portugal,25 the Court held that it
would be superfluous to still subject the estate to
administration proceedings since a determination of the
parties’ status as heirs could be achieved in the ordinary
civil case filed because it appeared from the records of the
case that the only property left by the decedent was the
subject matter of the case and that the parties have already
presented evidence to establish their right as heirs of the
decedent. In the present case, however, nothing in the
records of this case shows that the only property left by the
deceased Anacleto Cabrera is the subject lot, and neither
had respondents Peter and Deborah Ann presented any
evidence to establish their rights as heirs, considering
especially that it appears that there are other heirs of
Anacleto Cabrera who are not parties in this case that had
signed one of the questioned documents. Hence, under the
circumstances in this case, this Court finds that a
determination of the rights of respondents Peter and
Deborah Ann as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera in a special
proceeding is necessary.

_______________

25 Supra note 19.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

96

96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Reyes vs. Enriquez

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The

decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and
the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated June 29,
2000 DISMISSING the complaint is REINSTATED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Corona and Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., concur.

Azcuna, J., On Official Leave.

Petition granted, judgment reversed. That of Regional

Trial Court of Cebu City, Br. XI reinstated.

Notes.—In order that an heir may assert his right to

the property of a deceased, no previous judicial declaration
of heirship is necessary. (Bordalba vs. Court of Appeals,
374 SCRA 555 [2002])
Matters which involve settlement and distribution of the
estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of
the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
(Rodriguez vs. Lim, 509 SCRA 113 [2006])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d70003ffad85ecd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11