Portugal Vs Portugal Beltran
Portugal Vs Portugal Beltran
Portugal Vs Portugal Beltran
*
G.R. No. 155555. August 16, 2005.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
185
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
186
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
187
_______________
188
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
189
xxx
In the instant case, plaintiffs presented a Marriage Contract, a
Certificate of Live Birth, pictures (sic) and testimonial evidence to
establish their right as heirs of the decedent. Thus, the
preliminary act of having a status and right to the estate of the
decedent, was sought to be determined herein. However, the
establishment of a status, a right, or a particular fact is
remedied through a special proceeding (Sec. 3[c], Rule 1,
1997 Rules of Court), not an ordinary civil action whereby a party
sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
protection or redress of a wrong (ibid, a). The operative term in
the former is “to establish”, while in the latter, it is “to enforce”, a
right. Their status and right as putative heirs of the decedent not
having been established, as yet, the Complaint failed to state a
cause of action.
The court, not being a probate (sic) court, is without
jurisdiction to rule on plaintiffs’ cause to establish their status and
right herein. Plaintiffs do not have the personality to sue19(Secs. 1
and 2, Rule 3, in relation to Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 2, supra). (Italics
in the original; emphasis and italics supplied).
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
190
To be borne in mind is the fact that the main issue in the Cariño
case was the validity of the two marriages contracted by the
deceased SPO4 Santiago Cariño, whose death benefits was the
bone of contention between the two women both named Susan
(viz., Susan Nicdao Cariño and Susan Yee Cariño) both of whom
he married. It is not disputed in said case that SPO4 S. Cariño
contracted two marriages with said two women during his
lifetime, and the only question was: which of these two marriages
was validly celebrated? The award of the death benefits of the
deceased Cariño was thus, merely an incident to the question of
which of the two marriages was valid. Upon the other hand, the
case at bench is of a different milieu. The main issue here is the
annulment of title to property. The only undisputed fact in this
case is that the deceased Jose Portugal, during his lifetime, owned
a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
T-34292. However, here come two contending par-
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
191
I.
II.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
24 Id., at p. 14.
192
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
193
that a portion, if not all, of the two lots had been titled in
the name of the therein respondent Golden Bay Realty and
Development Corporation which in turn sold portions
thereof to the therein individual respondents. The therein
petitioners Heirs thus filed a complaint for annulment of
titles. The therein respondents moved to dismiss the case
for failure of the therein petitioners to, inter alia, state a
cause of action and prove their status as heirs. The trial
court granted the motion to dismiss in this wise:
But the 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.27
This must take
precedence over the action for reconveyance . . . (Emphasis in the
original; italics supplied).
_______________
27 Id., at p. 22.
28 100 Phil. 364 (1956).
29 182 SCRA 119 (1990).
30 Supra, note 28.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
194
and his therein named seven (7) siblings who are children
of the decedent by his marriage to Sia Khin celebrated in
China in 1911; that the decedent contracted in 1922 in the
Philippines another marriage with Marcosa Rivera; and
that the decedent left neither a will nor debt. Dy Tam thus
prayed for the issuance of letters of administration to
Marcosa Rivera, “the surviving spouse of the decedent.”
The CFI granted the petition and issued letters of
administration to, on Marcosa’s request, her nephew
Arminio Rivera.
While the special proceeding was pending, Dy Tam and
his purported siblings filed a civil case before the same
court, against the estate of Rafael Litam administrator
Arminio Rivera and Remedios R. Espiritu, duly appointed
guardian of Marcosa. In their complaint, Dy Tam and his
purported siblings substantially reproduced the allegations
made in his petition in the special proceeding, with the
addition of a list of properties allegedly acquired during the
marriage of the decedent and Marcosa.
Finding the issue raised in the civil case to be identical
to some unresolved incidents in the special proceeding,
both were jointly heard by the trial court, following which
it rendered a decision in the civil case dismissing it,
declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiffs Dy Tam et al. are
not the children of the decedent whose only surviving heir
is Marcosa.
On appeal to this Court by Dy Tam et al., one of the two
issues raised for determination was whether they are the
legitimate children of Rafael Litam.
This Court, holding that the issue hinged on whether
Rafael Litam and Sia Khin were married in 1911, and
whether Rafael Litam is the father of appellants Dy Tam et
al., found “substantially correct” the trial court’s findings of
fact and its conclusion that, among other things, the birth
certificates of Dy Tam et al. “do not establish the identity of
the deceased Rafael Litam and the persons named therein
as father [and] it does not appear in the said certificates of
birth that Rafael Litam had in any manner intervened in
the
195
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
_______________
196
_______________
197
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
As long as the order of the distribution of the estate has not been
complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed
and terminated (Siguiong vs. Tecson, supra.); because a judicial
partition is not final and conclusive and does not prevent the heir
from bringing an action to obtain his share, provided the
prescriptive period therefor has not elapse (Mari vs. Bonilla, 83
Phil., 137). The better practice, however, for the heir who has not
received his share, is to demand his share through a proper
motion in the same probate or administration proceedings,
or for re-opening of the probate or administrative proceedings if it
had already been closed, and not through an independent
action, which would be tried by another court or Judge
which may thus reverse a decision or order of the probate
o[r] intestate court already final and executed and re-shuffle
properties long ago distributed and disposed of (Ramos vs.
Ortuzar, 89 Phil. 730, 741-742; Timbol vs. Cano, supra; Jingco vs.
Daluz, L-5107, April 24, 1953, 92 Phil. 1082; Roman Catholic vs. 34
Agustines, L-14710, March 29, 1960, 107 Phil., 455, 460-461).
(Emphasis and italics supplied)
_______________
198
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
This Court thus set aside the assailed April 27, 1966 order
of the trial court setting the civil case for hearing, but
allowed the civil case to continue because it “involves no
longer” the two lots adjudicated to Juanita.
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 distribution or adjudication of a property
or properties belonging to the estate of the deceased.
In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or
wrongly that she was the sole 35
heir to Portugal’s estate,
executed on February 15, 1988 the questioned Affidavit of
Adjudication under the second sentence
36
of Rule 74, Section
1 of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an exception
to the general rule
_______________
199
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
_______________
200
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
_______________
201
SO ORDERED.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/18
9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 467
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661928f9409acf42dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18