7/29/2019 Republic of the Philippines Represented by the Register of Deeds of Pasay City

1/2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the REGISTER OF DEEDS OFPASAY CITY,petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER 3RDDIVISION) AND AMADA H. SOLANO, assisted by her husband ROMEOSOLANO, respondents. [G.R. No. 143483. January 31, 2002]

Facts:

Private respondent Amada Solano served for more than three decades as the all-around personal domestic helper of the late Elizabeth Hankins, a widow and aFrench national. In recognition of Solano's service, Ms. Hankins executed in herfavor two (2) deeds of donation involving two (2) parcels of land covered.Privaterespondent alleged that she misplaced the deeds of donation. While the deeds ofdonation were missing, the Republic filed a petition for the escheat of the estate ofHankins before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.[1] During the proceedings, thespouse of private respondent, and one Regosa, moved to intervene but was deniedfor the reason that "they miserably failed to show valid claim or right to theproperties in question."[2] The lower court escheated the estate of the decedent infavor of petitioner Republic of the Philippines. Then the Registry of Deedsof Pasay City issued new TCTs in the name of Pasay City. In 1997 private

respondent claimed that she accidentally found the deeds of donation thuspetitioned before the Court of Appeals for the annulment of the lower court'sdecision alleging, among other, that[3] Hankins having donated the subjectproperties to the petitioner in 1983 the subject properties did not and could notform part of her estate and further alleging the properties should have beenescheated in favor of the Republic of the Philippines under the New Rules of Courtand not to Pasay City Government. Republic filed an answer based on (a) lack of

jurisdiction over the nature of the action; and, (b) the cause of action was barred bythe statute of limitations. On appeal the Court ruled in favor of the respondenthence this petition.

Issues:Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to declare the same escheated in favor ofthe state and whether private respondent, not being an heir but allegedly a donee,have the personality to be a claimant within the purview of Sec. 4, Rule 91, of theRevised Rules of Court?

Ruling:Yes the lower court had jurisdiction of the escheat proceeding, we rule for thepetitioner. Escheat is a proceeding, unlike that of succession or assignment,whereby the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claims the real orpersonal property of a person who dies intestate leaving no heir. In the absence ofa lawful owner, a property is claimed by the state to forestall an open "invitation toself-service by the first comers."[5] Since escheat is one of the incidents ofsovereignty, the state may, and usually does, prescribe the conditions and limitsthe time within which a claim to such property may be made. The procedure bywhich the escheated property may be recovered is generally prescribed by statue,and a time limit is imposed within which such action must be brought.

In this jurisdiction, a claimant to an escheated property must file his claim "withinfive (5) years from the date of such judgment, such person shall have possession ofand title to the same, or if sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/143483.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/143483.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/143483.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/143483.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/143483.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/143483.htm#_edn1

7/29/2019 Republic of the Philippines Represented by the Register of Deeds of Pasay City

2/2

for the proceeds, after deducting the estate; but a claim not made shall be barredforever."[6] The 5-year period is not a device capriciously conjured by the state todefraud any claimant; on the contrary, it is decidedly prescribed to encouragewould-be claimants to be punctilious in asserting their claims, otherwise they maylose them forever in a final judgment.

An "interested party" in an escheat proceeding under sections 750 and 751 thepetitioner is not the sole and exclusive interested party. Any person alleging tohave a direct right or interest in the property sought to be escheated is likewise aninterested party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat. However, InIn the absence of any clear and convincing proof showing that the subject lands hadbeen conveyed by Hankins to private respondent Solano, the same still remained,at least before the escheat, part of the estate of the decedent and the lower courtwas right not to assume otherwise.

In the instant case where responded decided to contest under the guise of apetition for annulment of judgment which was decided more or less seven (7) yearsafter is obviously, a belated assertion of her right over the escheated properties

militates against recovery.A judgment in escheat proceedings when rendered by a court of competent

jurisdiction is conclusive against all persons with actual or constructive notice, butnot against those who are not parties or privies thereto. With the lapse of the 5-year period therefore, private respondent has irretrievably lost her right to claimand the supposed "discovery of the deeds of donation" is not enough justification tonullify the escheat judgment which has long attained finality.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/143483.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/143483.htm#_edn6