specpro 1st set of cases

7/24/2019 SpecPro 1st Set of Cases

1/74

REPUBLIC VS CA, MADRONA

G.R. NO. 163604 6 MAY 2005

CARPIO-MORALES,J.:

In In the Matter of Declaration of Presumptive Death of Absentee Spouse Clemente P. Jomoc,

Apolinaria Malinao Jomoc, petitioner, the Ormoc City, Reional !rial Court, "ranch #$, by Or%er of

September &', (''',)(*rante% the petition on the basis of the Commissioners Report)&*an%

accor%inly %eclare% the absentee spouse, +ho ha% left his petitioner+ife nine years earlier,

presumptively %ea%.

In rantin the petition, the trial -u%e, Ju%e ortunito /. Ma%rona, cite% Article 0(, par. & ofthe amily Co%e. Sai% article provi%es that for the purpose of contractin a vali% subse1uent

marriae %urin the subsistence of a previous marriae +here the prior spouse ha% been absent for

four consecutive years, the spouse present must institute su!"# $"%&''()*+sfor the %eclaration

of presumptive %eath of the absentee spouse, +ithout pre-u%ice to the effect of the reappearance of

the absent spouse.

!he Republic, throuh the Office of the Solicitor 2eneral, souht to appeal the trial courts or%er

by filin a 3otice of Appeal.)#*

"y Or%er of 3ovember &&, ('''s,)0*the trial court, notin that no recor% of appeal +as file% an%serve% as re1uire% by an% pursuant to Sec. &4a5, Rule 0( of the (''6 Rules of Civil Proce%ure, the

present case bein a special procee%in, %isapprove% the 3otice of Appeal.

!he Republics Motion for Reconsi%eration of the trial courts or%er of %isapproval havin been

%enie% by Or%er of January (#, &777,)$*it file% a Petition for Certiorari)8*before the Court of

Appeals, it conten%in that the %eclaration of presumptive %eath of a person un%er Article 0( of the

amily Co%e is not a special procee%in or a case of multiple or separate appeals re1uirin a recor%

on appeal.

"y Decision of May $, &770,)6*the Court of Appeals %enie% the Republics petition on proce%ural

an% substantive roun%s in this +ise9

At the outset, it must be stresse% that the petition is not sufficient in form. It faile% to attach to its

petition a certifie% true copy of the assaile% Or%er %ate% January (#, &777 )%enyin its Motion for

Reconsi%eration of the 3ovember &&, (''' Or%er %isapprovin its 3otice of Appeal*. Moreover, the

petition 1uestione% the )trial courts* Or%er %ate% Auust ($, (''', +hich %eclare% Clemente Jomoc
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn1


2/74

presumptively %ea%, li:e+ise for havin been issue% +ith rave abuse of %iscretion amountin to

lac: of -uris%iction, yet, not even a copy coul% be foun% in the recor%s. On this score alone, the

petition shoul% have been %ismisse% outriht in accor%ance +ith Sec. #, Rule 08 of the Rules of

Court.

;o+ever, %espite the proce%ural lapses, the Court resolves to %elve %eeper into the substantive issue

of the vali%ity


3/74

petition for the %eclaration of presumptive %eath of an absent spouse not bein inclu%e% in the

enumeration, petitioner conten%s that a mere notice of appeal suffices.

"y Resolution of December ($, &770, )?*this Court, notin that copy of the September &6, &770

Resolution)'*re1uirin respon%ent to file her comment on the petition +as returne% unserve% +ith

postmasters notation Party refuse%, Resolve% to consi%er that copy %eeme% serve% upon her.

!he pertinent provisions on the G'*'"! P"%)s)%*s %* S$'&)! P"%&''()*+s, Part II of the

Revise% Rules of Court entitle% SP>CIA/ PROC>>DI32S, rea%9

R@/> 6&

S@"J>C! MA!!>R A3D APP/ICA"I/I!=

O 2>3>RA/ R@/>S

Section (. Subject matter of special proceedings. Rules of special procee%ins are provi%e% for in the

follo+in9

4a5 Settlement of estate of %ecease% persons

4b5 >scheat

4c5 2uar%ianship an% custo%y of chil%ren

4%5 !rustees

4e5 A%option

4f5 Rescission an% revocation of a%option

45 ;ospitaliBation of insane persons

4h5 ;abeas corpus

4i5 Chane of name

4-5 oluntary %issolution of corporations

4:5 Ju%icial approval of voluntary reconition of minor natural chil%ren

4l5 Constitution of family home
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn9


4/74

4m5 Declaration of absence an% %eath

4n5 Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil reistry.

Sec. &.Applicability of rules of civil actions. In the absence of special provisions, the rules provi%e%

for in or%inary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special procee%ins.4@n%erscorin supplie%5

!he pertinent provision of the Civil Co%e on presumption of %eath provi%es9

Art. #'7. After an absence of seven years, it bein un:no+n +hether or not the absentee still lives,

he shall be presume% %ea% %" ! $u"$%s's,ecept for those of succession.

4>mphasis an% un%erscorin supplie%5

@pon the other han%, Article 0( of the amily Co%e, upon +hich the trial court anchore% itsrant of the petition for the %eclaration of presumptive %eath of the absent spouse, provi%es9

Art. 0(. A marriae contracte% by any person %urin the subsistence of a previous marriae shall be

null an% voi%, unless before the celebration of the subse1uent marriae, the prior spouses ha% been

absent for four consecutive years an% the spouse present ha% a +ellfoun%e% belief that the absent

spouses +as alrea%y %ea%. In case of %isappearance +here there is %aner of %eath un%er the

circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article #'( of the Civil Co%e, an absence of only t+o

years shall be sufficient.

or the purpose pf contractin the subse1uent marriae un%er the prece%in pararaph, the spousespresent must institute a su!"# $"%&''()*+ !s $"%)('( )* /)s C%('for the %eclaration of

presumptive %eath of the absentee, +ithout pre-u%ice to the effect of a reappearance of the absent

spouse. 4>mphasis an% un%erscorin supplie%5

Rule 0(, Section & of the Revise% Rules of Court, on Mo%es of Appeal, invo:e% by the trial

court in %isapprovin petitioners 3otice of Appeal, provi%es9

Sec. &.Modes of appeal.

4a5 Ordinary appeal. - !he appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases %eci%e% by the Reional !rialCourt in the eercise of its oriinal -uris%iction shall be ta:en by filin a notice of appeal +ith the

court +hich ren%ere% the -u%ment or final or%er appeale% from an% servin a copy thereof upon the

a%verse party. 3o recor% on appeal shall be re1uire% ecept in s$'&)! $"%&''()*+san% other &!s's

% u/)$' %" s'$!"!/' !$$'!s '"' /' ! %" /'s' Ru's s% "'u)"' . In such cases, the recor%

on appeal shall be file% an% serve% in li:e manner.


5/74

"y the trial courts citation of Article 0( of the amily Co%e, it is athere% that the petition of

Apolinaria Jomoc to have her absent spouse %eclare% presumptively %ea% ha% for its purpose her

%esire to contract a vali% subse1uent marriae.Ergo, the petition for that purpose is a su!"#

$"%&''()*+, follo+in above1uote% Art. 0(, pararaph & of the amily Co%e.

Since !itle EI of the amily Co%e, entitle% S@MMAR= J@DICIA/ PROC>>DI32 I3 !;>

AMI/= /AF, contains the follo+in provision, inter alia9

Art. ?. @nless mo%ifie% by the Supreme Court, the proce%ural rules in this !itle shall apply )* !

&!s'sprovi%e% for in this Co%es re1uirin su!"# &%u"/ $"%&''()*+s. Su& &!s's s! '

('&)('( )* !* '$'()/)%us !**'" )/%u/ "'+!"( /% /'&*)&! "u's.4>mphasis an% un%erscorin

supplie%5

there is no %oubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc re1uire%, an% is, therefore, a summary

procee%in un%er the amily Co%e, not a special procee%in un%er the Revise% Rules of Court

appeal for +hich calls for the filin of a Recor% on Appeal. It bein a summary or%inary procee%in,

the filin of a 3otice of Appeal from the trial courts or%er suffice%.

!hat the amily Co%e provision on repeal, Art. &$0, provi%es as follo+s9

Art. &$0. !itles III, I, , I, II, III, IE, EI an% E of "oo: I of Republic Act 3o. #?8, other+ise

:no+n as the Civil Co%e of the Philippines, as amen%e%, an% Articles (6, (?, (', &6, &?, &', #7, #(,

#', 07, 0( an% 0& of Presi%ential Decree 3o. 87#, other+ise :no+n as the Chil% an% =outh Felfare

Co%e, as amen%e%, an% all !s, %ecrees, eecutive or%ers, proclamations "u'san% reulations, or

parts thereof, )*&%*s)s/'*/ /'"')/are hereby "'$'!'(, seals the case in petitioners favor.

inally, on the allee% proce%ural fla+ in petitioners petition before the appellate court.

Petitioners failure to attach to his petition before the appellate court a copy of the trial courts or%er

%enyin its motion for reconsi%eration of the %isapproval of its 3otice of Appeal is not necessarily

fatal, for the rules of proce%ure are not to be applie% in a technical sense. 2iven the issue raise%

before it by petitioner, +hat the appellate court shoul% have %one +as to %irect petitioner to comply

+ith the rule.

As for petitioners failure to submit copy of the trial courts or%er rantin the petition for

%eclaration of presumptive %eath, contrary to the appellate courts observation that petitioner +as alsoassailin it, petitioners ?pae petition)(7*file% in sai% court %oes not so reflect, it merely havin

assaile% the or%er %isapprovin the 3otice of Appeal.

7ERE8ORE, the assaile% May $, &770 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby

R>>RS>D an% S>! ASID>. /et the case be R>MA3D>D to it for appropriate action in liht of

the foreoin %iscussion.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/163604.htm#_ftn10


6/74

SO ORDERED.

S7E9ER VS S7E9ER

G.R. NO. 15;12 13 DECEMBER 200

AUSRIA-MARINE


7/74

presentation an% %isposition of the claims aainst the %ece%entHs estate in or%er to settle

the affairs of the estate as soon as possible, pay off its %ebts an% %istribute the resi%ue.

!he rulin spirit of the probate la+ is the spee%y settlement of estates of %ecease%

persons for the benefit of cre%itors an% those entitle% to resi%ue by +ay of inheritance or

leacy after the %ebts an% epenses of a%ministration have been pai%

RULE 1 SEC 6:/I">RA/ CO3S!R@C!IO3 O R@/>S OR SP>>D= J@S! I3>EP>3SI>

DISPOSI!IO3 O CAS>S

S@"S!A3!IA/ J@S!IC>

8ACS:Petition for allo+ance of the %ece%ent Alice She:erHs holoraphic +ill +as file% to the

R!C, thereafter R!C a%mitte% to probate the holoraphic +ill of Alice O. She:er an% thereafter

issue% an or%er for all the cre%itors to file their respective claims aainst the estate.

Alan She:er, petitioner file% a continent claim for aentHs commission %ue him in the event of the

sale of certain parcels of lan% belonin to the estate, an% reimbursement for epenses incurre%

an%state of Alice O. She:er 4respon%ent ictoria Me%ina5 move% for the %ismissal

of sai% money claim aainst the estate on the roun%s that 4(5 the re1uisite %oc:et fee, as prescribe%

in Section 64a5, Rule (0( of the Rules of Court, ha% not been pai% 4&5 petitioner faile% to attach a

certification aainst nonforum shoppin an% 4#5 petitioner faile% to attach a +ritten eplanation

+hy the money claim +as not file% an% serve% personally.

R!C issue% the assaile% Or%er %ismissin +ithout pre-u%ice the money claim base% on A// of

respon%entGs roun%s.

ISSUE=7ELD:

I. '/'" %" *%/ /' "u's )* %"()*!"# !&/)%*s !"' !$$)&!' /% s$'&)! $"%&''()*+s %*# )* !

su$$'/%"# !**'">

3O. Section &, Rule 6&, Part II of the same Rules of Court provi%es9

Sec. &. Applicability of rules of Civil Actions. In the absence of special provisions, the rules

provi%e% for in or%inary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special procee%ins.

!he +or% practicable is %efine% as9 possible to practice or perform capable of bein put into

practice, %one or accomplishe%. !his means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in

or%inary actions may be applie% in special procee%ins as much as possible an% +here %oin so

+oul% not pose an obstacle to sai% procee%ins an% not merely suppletory.

II. '/'" %" *%/ !//!&'*/ % *%*-%"u s%$$)*+ "'u)"'( %" &"'()/%"?s &!) )* $"%!/'

$"%&''()*+>


8/74

3O. Althouh the re1uirement of 3onforum shoppin is applicable if not in conflict or obstacle to

spec. proc., li:e in probate procee%in. ;o+ever it only applies to complaint or other initiatory

plea%in... the +hole probate procee%in +as initiate% upon the filin of the petition for allo+ance of

the %ece%entHs +ill, hence the petition by cre%itors for their claim aainst the estate is merely a

motion for cre%itorHs claim 4Rule ?8, sec ( an% $5.

A money claim is only an inci%ental matter in the main action for the settlement of the %ece%entHs

estate more so if the claim is continent since the claimant cannot even institute a separate action

for a mere continent claim. ;ence, herein petitionerHs continent money claim, not bein an

initiatory plea%in, %oes not re1uire a certification aainst nonforum shoppin.

III. '/'" %" *%/ *%*-$!#'*/ % (%&@'/=))*+ ''s % &"'()/%"?s &!) )* $"%!/' $"%&''()*+

+"%u*( %" ()s)ss!>

3O. because the cre%itorHs claim is not initiatory. It is not a roun% for %ismissal , because such filin

fees constitute a lien on the -u%ment pursuant to Section &, Rule (0( of the Rules of Court, or thetrial court may or%er the payment of such filin fees +ithin a reasonable time. After all, the trial

court ha% alrea%y assume% -uris%iction over the action for settlement of the estate.

I. '/'" %" *%/ ")//'* '$!*!/)%* % *%*-$'"s%*! s'")&' % $!$'"s ! +"%u*( %"

()s)ss!>

In the present case, 3O. situational.

Petitioner hol%s office in Salce%o illae, Ma:ati City, +hile counsel for respon%ent an% the R!C

+hich ren%ere% the assaile% or%ers are both in Ilian City. !he lo+er court shoul% have ta:en -u%icial

notice of the reat %istance bet+een sai% cities an% realiBe% that it is in%ee% not practicable to servean% file the money claim personally. !hus, follo+in Me%ina v. Court of Appeals, the failure of

petitioner to submit a +ritten eplanation +hy service has not been %one personally, may be

consi%ere% as superfluous an% the R!C shoul% have eercise% its %iscretion un%er Section ((, Rule

(#, not to %ismiss the money claim of petitioner, in the interest of substantial -ustice an% purpose of

probate procee%in for spee%y settlement of estate of %ecease%.

8ALLO:F;>R>OR>, the petition is 2RA3!>D. !he Or%ers of the Reional !rial Court of

Ilian City, are R>>RS>D an% S>! ASID>. !he Reional !rial Court of Ilian City, "ranch 8, is

hereby DIR>C!>D to ive %ue course an% ta:e appropriate action on petitionerHs money claim in

accor%ance +ith Rule ?& of the Rules of Court.


9/74

REYES VS ENRIUEsperi%ion Reyes, Julieta C. Rivera, an% >uti1uioDico, Jr., they are the la+ful heirs of Dionisia Reyes +ho coo+ne% the sub-ect parcel of lan% +ith

Anacleto Cabrera as evi%ence% by !ransfer Certificate of !itle 4!C!5 3o. R!#$$( 4!?7675. On

April (6, (''8, petitioners eecute% an >tra-u%icial Settlement +ith Sale of the >state of Dionisia

Reyes 4the >tra Ju%icial Settlement5 involvin a portion of the sub-ect parcel of lan%. On March &(,

(''6, the petitioners an% the :no+n heirs of Anacleto Cabrera eecute% a Sereation of Real >state

an% Confirmation of Sale 4the Sereation an% Confirmation5 over the same property. "y virtue of

the aforestate% %ocuments, !C! 3o. R!#$$$( 4!?7675 +as cancelle% an% ne+ !C!s +ere

issue%9 4(5 !C! 3o. !'?$68 in the name of Anacleto Cabrera coverin /ot (?$(A 4&5 !C! 3o. !

'?$66 coverin /ot (?$(" in the name of petitioner >uti1uio Dico, Jr. 4#5 !C! 3o. !'?$6?

coverin /ot (?$(C in the name of petitioner austino Reyes 405 !C! 3o. !'?$6'

coverin /ot (?$(D in the name of petitioner >speri%ion Reyes 4$5 !C! 3o. !'?$?7

coverin /ot (?$(> in the name of petitioner Julieta 2. Rivera 485 !C! 3o. !'?$?(

coverin /ot (?$( in the name of elipe Dico an% 465 !C! 3o. !'?$?& coverin /ot (?$(2 in

the name of Archime%es C. illaluB.)#*

Respon%ents Peter ". >nri1ueB 4Peter5 for himself an% on behalf of his minor %auhter

Deborah Ann C. >nri1ueB 4Deborah Ann5, also :no+n as Dina Ab%ullah >nri1ueB Alsaoff, on the

other han%, allees that their pre%ecessorininterest Anacleto Cabrera an% his +ife Patricia Seuera

Cabrera 4collectively the Spouses Cabrera5 o+ne% proin%iviso share in the sub-ect parcel of lan% or

(7$( s1. m. !hey further allee that Spouses Cabrera +ere survive% by t+o %auhters 2raciana, +ho

%ie% sinle an% +ithout issue, an% >tta, the +ife of respon%ent Peter an% mother of respon%ent

Deborah Ann +ho succee%e% their parents rihts an% too: possession ofthe (7$( s1. m. of the

sub-ect parcel of lan%. Durin her lifetime, 2raciana sol% her share over the lan% to >tta. !hus,

ma:in the latter the sole o+ner of the onehalf share of the sub-ect parcel of lan%. Subse1uently,

>tta %ie% an% the property passe% on to petitioners Peter an% Deborah Ann by virtue of an >tra
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn4


10/74

Ju%icial Settlement of >state. On June (', (''', petitioners Peter an% Deborah Ann sol% &77 s1. m.

out of the (7$( s1. m. for P&77,777.77 to Spouses Dionisio an% Catalina ernan%eB 4Spouses

ernan%eB5, also their corespon%ents in the case at bar. After the sale, Spouses ernan%eB too:

possession of the sai% area in the sub-ect parcel of lan%.)0*

Fhen Spouses ernan%eB, trie% to reister their share in the sub-ect lan%, they %iscovere% thatcertain %ocuments prevent them from %oin so9 4(5 Affi%avit by Anacleto Cabrera %ate% March (8,

('$6 statin that his share in /ot 3o. (?$(, the sub-ect property, is approimately #8' s1. m. 4&5

Affi%avit by Dionisia Reyes %ate% July (#, ('&' statin that Anacleto only o+ne% of /ot 3o. (?$(,

+hile #7&.$$ s1. m. belons to Dionisia an% the rest of the property is coo+ne% by 3icolasa

"acalso, Juan Reyes, lorentino Reyes an% Maimiano Dico 4#5 >traJu%icial Settlement +ith Sale

of the >state of Dionisia Reyes %ate% April (6, (''8 405 certificates of title in the name of the herein

petitioners an% 4$5 Dee% of Sereation of Real >state an% Confirmation of Sale %ate% March &(,

(''6 eecute% by the allee% heirs of Dionisia Reyes an% Anacleto Cabrera. Allein that the

foreoin %ocuments are frau%ulent an% fictitious, the respon%ents file% a complaint for annulment

or nullification of the aforementione% %ocuments an% for %amaes.)$*!hey li:e+ise praye% for the

repartition an% resub%ivision of the sub-ect property.)8*

!he R!C, upon motion of the herein petitioners, %ismisse% the case on the roun% that the

respon%entsplaintiffs +ere actually see:in first an% foremost to be %eclare% heirs of Anacleto

Cabrera since they can not %eman% the partition of the real property +ithout first bein %eclare% as

leal heirs an% such may not be %one in an or%inary civil action, as in this case, but throuh a special

procee%in specifically institute% for the purpose.)6*

On appeal, the Court of Appeals 4CA5 reverse% the R!C an% %irecte% the trial court to

procee% +ith the hearin of the case.)?*!he Motion for Reconsi%eration file% by the herein

petitioners +as similarly %enie%.)'*

;ence this petition.

!he primary issue in this case is +hether or not the respon%ents have to institute a special

procee%in to %etermine their status as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera before they can file an or%inary

civil action to nullify the affi%avits of Anacleto Cabrera an% Dionisia Reyes, the >traJu%icial

Settlement +ith the Sale of >state of Dionisia Reyes, an% the Dee% of Sereation of Real >state an%

Confirmation of Sale eecute% by the heirs of Dionisia Reyes an% the heirs of Anacleto Cabrera, as

+ell as to cancel the ne+ transfer certificates of title issue% by virtue of the above1uestione%

%ocuments.

Fe ans+er in the affirmative.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn10


11/74

An or%inary civil action is one by +hich a party sues another for the enforcement or

protection of a riht, or the prevention or re%ress of a +ron.)(7*A special procee%in, on the other

han%, is a reme%y by +hich a party see:s to establish a status, a riht or a particular fact.)((*

!he Rules of Court provi%e that only a real party in interest is allo+e% to prosecute an%

%efen% an action in court.)(&*A real party in interest is the one +ho stan%s to be benefite% or in-ure%by the -u%ment in the suit or the one entitle% to the avails thereof.)(#*Such interest, to be consi%ere%

a real interest, must be one +hich is present an% substantial, as %istinuishe% from a mere

epectancy, or a future, continent, subor%inate or conse1uential interest. )(0*A plaintiff is a real party

in interest +hen he is the one +ho has a leal riht to enforce or protect, +hile a %efen%ant is a real

party in interest +hen he is the one +ho has a correlative leal obliation to re%ress a +ron %one to

the plaintiff by reason of the %efen%ants act or omission +hich ha% violate% the leal riht of the

former.)($*!he purpose of the rule is to protect persons aainst un%ue an% unnecessary litiation.)(8*It

li:e+ise ensures that the court +ill have the benefit of havin before it the real a%verse parties in the

consi%eration of a case.)(6*!hus, a plaintiffs riht to institute an or%inary civil action shoul% be base%

on his o+n riht to the relief souht.

In cases +herein allee% heirs of a %ece%ent in +hose name a property +as reistere% sue to

recover the sai% property throuh the institution of an or%inary civil action, such as a complaint for

reconveyance an% partition,)(?*or nullification of transfer certificate of titles an% other %ee%s or

%ocuments relate% thereto,)('*this Court has consistently rule% that a %eclaration of heirship is

improper in an or%inary civil action since the matter is +ithin the eclusive competence of the court

in a special procee%in.)&7*In the recent case of P%"/u+! . P%"/u+!-B'/"!*,)&(*the Court ha% the

occasion to clarify its rulin on the issue at han%, to +it9

!he common %octrine in /itam, Solivio an% 2uilas in +hich the a%verse

parties are putative heirs to the estate of a %ece%ent or parties to the special

procee%ins for its settlement is that if the special procee%ins are pen%in, or ) /'"'

!"' *% s$'&)! $"%&''()*+s )'( u/ /'"' )s, u*('" /' &)"&us/!*&'s % /' &!s',

! *''( /% )' %*', /'* /' ('/'")*!/)%* %, !%*+ %/'" )ssu's, ')"s)$ s%u(

' "!)s'( !*( s'//'( )* s!)( s$'&)! $"%&''()*+s.Fhere special procee%ins ha%

been institute% but ha% been finally close% an% terminate%, ho+ever, or if a putative

heir has lost the riht to have himself %eclare% in the special procee%ins as coheir

an% he can no loner as: for its reopenin, then an or%inary civil action can be file%

for his %eclaration as heir in or%er to brin about the annulment of the partition or%istribution or a%-u%ication of a property or properties belonin to the estate of the

%ecease%.)&&*

In the instant case, +hile the complaint +as %enominate% as an action for the Declaration of

3on>istency)sic*, 3ullity of Dee%s, an% Cancellation of Certificates of !itle, etc., a revie+ of the

alleations therein reveals that the riht bein asserte% by the respon%ents are their riht as heirs of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn23


12/74

Anacleto Cabrera +ho they claim coo+ne% onehalf of the sub-ect property an% not merely one

fourth as state% in the %ocuments the respon%ents souht to annul. As correctly pointe% out by the

trial court, the rulin in the case of 7')"s % Gu)(% Y!$/)*&!# . 7%*. R%# (' R%s!")% )*is

applicable in the case at bar. In the sai% case, the petitioners therein, claimin to be the leal heirs of

the late 2ui%o an% Isabel =aptinchay file% for annulment of the transfer certificates of title issue% in

the name of 2ol%en "ay Realty Corporation on the roun% that the sub-ect properties rihtfully

belon to the petitioners pre%ecessor an% by virtue of succession have passe% on to them. In

affirmin the trial court therein, this Court rule%9

...4!5he plaintiffs +ho claime% to be the leal heirs of the sai% 2ui%o an%

Isabel =aptinchay have not sho+n any proof or even a semblance of it ecept the

alleations that they are the leal heirs of the aforementione% =aptinchays that they

have been %eclare% the leal heirs of the %ecease% couple. 3o+, the %etermination of

+ho are the leal heirs of the %ecease% couple must be ma%e in the proper special

procee%ins in court, an% not in an or%inary suit for reconveyance of property. !his

must ta:e prece%ence over the action for reconveyance.)&0*

In the same manner, the respon%ents herein, ecept for their alleations, have yet to

substantiate their claim as the leal heirs of Anacleto Cabrera +ho are, thus, entitle% to the sub-ect

property. 3either is there anythin in the recor%s of this case +hich +oul% sho+ that a special

procee%in to have themselves %eclare% as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera ha% been institute%. As such,

the trial court correctly %ismisse% the case for there is a lac: of cause of action +hen a case is

institute% by parties +ho are not real parties in interest. Fhile a %eclaration of heirship +as not

praye% for in the complaint, it is clear from the alleations therein that the riht the respon%ents

souht to protect or enforce is that of an heir of one of the reistere% coo+ners of the property priorto the issuance of the ne+ transfer certificates of title that they see: to cancel. !hus, there is a nee%

to establish their status as such heirs in the proper forum.

urthermore, in P%"/u+!,)&$*the Court hel% that it +oul% be superfluous to still sub-ect the

estate to a%ministration procee%ins since a %etermination of the partiesH status as heirs coul% be

achieve% in the or%inary civil case file% because it appeare% from the recor%s of the case that the only

property left by the %ece%ent +as the sub-ect matter of the case an% that the parties have alrea%y

presente% evi%ence to establish their riht as heirs of the %ece%ent. In the present case, ho+ever,

nothin in the recor%s of this case sho+s that the only property left by the %ecease% Anacleto

Cabrera is the sub-ect lot, an% neither ha% respon%ents Peter an% Deborah Ann presente% any

evi%ence to establish their rihts as heirs, consi%erin especially that it appears that there are other

heirs of Anacleto Cabrera +ho are not parties in this case that ha% sine% one of the 1uestione%

%ocuments. ;ence, un%er the circumstances in this case, this Court fin%s that a %etermination of the

rihts of respon%ents Peter an% Deborah Ann as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera in a special procee%in is

necessary.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/162956.htm#_ftn26


13/74

IN VIE 7EREO8, the petition is GRANED. !he %ecision of the Court of Appeals is

hereby REVERSED an% the %ecision of the Reional !rial Court %ate%June &',

&777 DISMISSING the complaint is REINSAED. 3o costs.

SO ORDERED.


14/74

C7ING E.AL VS RODRIGUElena !iu Del Pilar, Asia Atlantic

Resources entures, Inc., Reisters of Dee%s of Manila an% Malabon, an% all persons claimin rihts

or titles from Ramon Chin 4Ramon5.

!he Complaint +as captione% as one for KDisinheritance, Declaration of 3ullity of Areement an%

Faiver, Affi%avit of >traJu%icial Settlement, Dee% of Absolute Sale, !ransfer Certificates of !itle

+ith Prayer for )the* Issuance of )a* !emporary Restrainin Or%er an% )a* Frit of Preliminary

In-unction.K In the complaint, the respon%ents allee% that 4(5 they are the heirs of Antonio Chin

an% that Ramon misrepresente% himself as Antonios son +hen he +as, in fact, a%opte% an% his birth

certificate% merely simulate% 4&5 Antonio +as :ille% +ith Ramon as the prime suspect an% prior to

the conclusion of the investiations, Ramon ma%e an inventory of the formers estate an% illeally

transferre% to his name the titles to Antonios properties 4#5 Ramon s+eettal:e% respon%ent

Merce%es into surren%erin to him a Certificate of !ime Deposit of P0,777,777.77 in the name of

Antonio an% the !C!s of t+o con%o units reistere% un%er Ramons name 405 Ramon illeally

transferre% to his o+n name throuh a fore% %ocument 07,777 shares in Po Fin Corporation 4$5Ramon eecute% an Affi%avit of >traJu%icial Settlement of >state a%-u%icatin solely to himself

AntonioHs entire estate to the pre-u%ice of the respon%ents an% 485 Ramon sol% AntonioHs t+o parcels

of lan% in 3avotas to co%efen%ant Asia Atlantic "usiness entures, Inc. Another parcel of lan%,

+hich +as part of AntonioHs estate, +as sol% by Ramon to co%efen%ant >lena !iu Del Pilar at an

unreasonably lo+ price.

!he respon%ents thus praye% for the 4(5 issuance of a !RO to restrain Ramon or his representatives

from %isposin or sellin any property that belons to the estate of Antonio 4&5 that Ramon be

%eclare% as %is1ualifie% from inheritin from Antonio Chin an% 4#5 %eclarin null the unauthoriBe%

transfers ma%e by Ramon.

!he R!C %enie% the petitioners Motion to Dismiss an% subse1uent Motion for Reconsi%eration.

ISSUE:Fhether or not the R!C shoul% have rante% the Motion to Dismiss +ith rear% to the

issues +hich coul% only be resolve% in a special procee%in an% not in an or%inary civil action
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/192828.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/192828.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/192828.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/192828.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/192828.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/192828.htm#_ftn3


15/74

7ELD:3o reversible errors +ere committe% by the R!C an% the CA +hen they both rule% that the

%enial of the petitionersH secon% motion to %ismiss +as proper.

An action for reconveyance an% annulment of title +ith %amaes is a civil action, +hereas mattersrelatin to settlement of the estate of a %ecease% person such as a%vancement of property ma%e by

the %ece%ent, parta:e of the nature of a special procee%in, +hich concomitantly re1uires the

application of specific rules as provi%e% for in the Rules of Court.

@n%er Article '(8 of the 3CC, %isinheritance can be effecte% only throuh a +ill +herein the leal

cause therefor shall be specifie%. !his Court arees +ith the R!C an% the CA that +hile the

respon%ents in their Complaint an% Amen%e% Complaint souht the %isinheritance of Ramon, no +ill

or any instrument suppose%ly effectin the %isposition of AntonioHs estate +as ever mentione%.

;ence, %espite the prayer for RamonHs %isinheritance, the case file% %oes not parta:e of the nature of

a special procee%in an% %oes not call for the probate courtHs eercise of its limite% -uris%iction.

>ven +ithout the necessity of bein %eclare% as heirs of Antonio, the respon%ents have the stan%in

to see: for the nullification of the instruments in the liht of their claims that there +as no

consi%eration for their eecution, an% that Ramon eercise% un%ue influence an% committe% frau%

aainst them. Conse1uently, the respon%ents then claime% that the Affi%avit of >traJu%icial

Settlement of Antonios estate eecute% by Ramon, an% the !C!s issue% upon the authority of the

sai% affi%avit, are null an% voi% as +ell. RamonHs averment that a resolution of the issues raise% shall

first re1uire a %eclaration of the respon%entsH status as heirs is a mere %efense +hich is not

%eterminative of +hich court shall properly eercise -uris%iction.

In sum, this Court arees +ith the CA that the nullification of the %ocuments sub-ect of the civil case

coul% be achieve% in an or%inary civil action, +hich in this specific case +as institute% to protect the

respon%ents from the suppose%ly frau%ulent acts of Ramon. In the event that the R!C +ill fin%

roun%s to rant the reliefs praye% for by the respon%ents, the only conse1uence +ill be the reversion

of the properties sub-ect of the %ispute to the estate of Antonio. !he civil case +as not institute% to

conclusively resolve the issues relatin to the a%ministration, li1ui%ation an% %istribution of

AntonioHs estate, hence, not the proper sub-ect of a special procee%in for the settlement of the estate

of a %ecease% person un%er Rules 6#'( of the Rules of Court.

!he respon%entsH resort to an or%inary civil action before the R!C may not be strateically soun%,

because a settlement procee%in shoul% thereafter still follo+, if their intent is to recover from

Ramon the properties allee% to have been illeally transferre% in his name. "e that as it may, the

R!C, in the eercise of its eneral -uris%iction, cannot be restraine% from ta:in coniBance of

respon%entsH Complaint an% Amen%e% Complaint as the issues raise% an% the prayers in%icate%

therein are matters +hich nee% not be threshe% out in a special procee%in


16/74

MENDO


17/74

!he issue is +hether or not in an action for reconveyance, an alleation see:in appointment as

a%ministratri of an estate, +oul% oust the R!C of its -uris%iction over the +hole case

Fe rule in the neative. irst, Section (' of ".P. (&' as amen%e% by RA 68'( provi%es9

!urisdiction in Civil Cases. N Reional !rial Courts shall eercise eclusive oriinal-uris%iction9

4(5 In all civil actions in +hich the sub-ect of the litiation is incapable of pecuniary

estimation

4&5 In all civil actions +hich involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any

interest therein, +here the assesse% value of property involve% ecee%s !+enty

thousan% pesos 4P&7,777.775. . .

405 In all matters of probate, both testate an% intestat . . . .

/i:e+ise, Section ## of the same la+ provi%es that9

Metropolitan !rial Court shall eercise9

4(5 >clusive oriinal -uris%iction over civil actions an% probate

procee%ins, testate an% intestate . . . 4emphasis ours5.

!he above la+ is clear. An action for reconveyance, +hich involves title to property +orth

millions of pesos, such as the lots sub-ect of this case, is coniBable by the R!C. /i:e+isefallin +ithin its -uris%iction are actions Kincapable of pecuniary estimation,K such as the

appointment of an a%ministratri for an estate. >ven the Rules on venue of estate procee%ins

4Section ( of Rule 6#5 implie%ly reconiBes the -uris%iction of the R!C over petitions for

rantin of letters of a%ministration. On the other han%, probate procee%ins for the

settlement of estate are +ithin the ambit of either the R!C or M!C %epen%in on the net

+orth of the estate. "y aruin that the alleation see:in such appointment as a%ministratri

ouste% the R!C of its -uris%iction, both public an% private respon%ents confuse -uris%iction

+ith venue. Section & of Rule 0 as revise% by Circular (#'$ provi%es that actions involvin

title to property shall be trie% in the province +here the property is locate%, in this case, N

"atanas. !he mere fact that petitionerHs %ecease% husban% resi%es in LueBon City at the time

of his %eath affects only the venue but not the -uris%iction of the Court. ;

Secon%, the cases cite% 10by private respon%ents are not at point as they involvesettlement of

estate+here the probate court +as as:e% to resolve 1uestions of o+nership of certain properties.In

the present suit, no settlement of estate is involve%, but merely an alleation see:in appointment as

estate a%ministratri +hich %oes not necessarily involve settlement of estate that +oul% have invite%


18/74

the eercise of the limite% -uris%iction of a probate court. !he above alleation is not even a

-uris%ictional fact +hich must be state% in an action for reconveyance. !he Court therefore, shoul%

have at least, procee%e% +ith the reconveyance suit rather than %ismiss the entire case.

!hir%, -urispru%ential rulins that a probate court cannot enerally %eci%e 1uestions of o+nership or

title to property 11is not applicable in this case, because9 there is no settlement of estate involve% an%

the R!C of "atanas +as not actin as a probate court. It shoul% be clarifie% that +hether a

particular matter shoul% be resolve% by the R!C in the eercise of its eneral -uris%iction or its

limite% probate -uris%iction, is not a -uris%ictional issue but a mere 1uestion of

proce%ure.12Moreover, the instant action for reconveyance %oes not even invo:e the limite%

-uris%iction of a probate court.13Consi%erin that the R!C has -uris%iction, +hether it be on the

reconveyance suit or as to the appointment of an a%ministratri, it +as improper for respon%ent

-u%e to %ismiss the +hole complaint for allee% lac: of -uris%iction.

inally, -u%es shoul% not %ismiss +ith precipitate haste, complaints or petitions file% before them,

-ust so they can comply +ith their a%ministrative %uty to %ispose cases +ithin '7 %ays at the epense

of their -u%icial responsibility.

7ERE8ORE, the Resolutions %ate% June (0, (''$ an% 3ovember (0, (''$ of the R!C of

"atanas are REVERSEDan% SE ASIDE. !he trial court is or%ere% to imme%iately procee% +ith

the %isposition of the case in accor%ance +ith this Decision. SO ORDERED.

REPUBLIC VS VILLARAMA

G.R. N%. 1133. S'$/''" 5, 1;;


19/74

DAVIDE, R.,J.:

!his is a special civil action for certiorariun%er Rule 8$ of the Rules of Court to reverse the &

3ovember (''0 Or%er )(*of the Reional !rial Court, "ranch ($8, Pasi City 4hereafter, probate

court5, in Special Procee%ins 3o. (7&6' entitle% In the Matter of the Probate of the Fill of

er%inan% >. Marcos


20/74

405 On the premise that no probate procee%in +as pen%in any+here, sai% Court mo%ifie% on (8

3ovember (''& its preliminary in-unction to inclu%e certain S+iss "an:s.

4$5 In July (''0, the plaintiffs in MD/ 3o. ?07 file% +ith the ;a+aii District Court a motion to

further mo%ify the preliminary in-unction to i%entify the Republic of the Philippines as aent,

representative, ai%e, an% abettor of the %efen%ant >state, notice of +hich +as receive% by the Office

of the Solicitor 2eneral on &$ July (''0.

485 !here +as a nee% to preserve the estate, consi%erin that it +as the sub-ect of protracte% litiation

both here an% abroa%. Petitioner nominate% Commissioner of Internal Revenue /i+ay+ay inBons

Chato as a%ministrator of the estate.

er%inan% R. Marcos II oppose% the motion claimin that the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue +as not a suitable person to act as a%ministrator of the estate.

In its Or%er )?*of ' September (''0, the probate court, per public respon%ent Ju%e illarama,

rante% the motion an% appointe% Commissioner /i+ay+ay inBonsChato as Special A%ministrator

of the estate of er%inan% >. Marcos. Citin Section ( of Rule 6# of the Rules of Court, the or%er

also %eclare% that upon the filin of the petition for probate of the +ill, the probate court ac1uire%

-uris%iction over the estate to the eclusion of all other courts an% that the @.S. District Court of

;a+aii cannot assert its -uris%iction over the assets of the estate an% eclu%e the -uris%iction alrea%y

veste% in )the probate court*. ;e %irecte% that a copy of the or%er be furnishe% the @.S. District Court

of ;a+aii throuh the Department of orein Affairs.

On &0 October (''0, petitioner file% in the probate court a Petition for the Issuance of a Frit of

Preliminary In-unction +ith @rentE"-#arteMotion for a !emporary Restrainin Or%er. )'*It allee%

that in the class action the @.S. District Court of ;a+aii issue% sometime in October (''0 a

Reference Or%er )(7*appointin special masters for the purpose of obtainin %epositions in the

Philippines on the follo+in matters9 4(5 +hether the victims i%entifie% in the claim forms suffere%

torture, summary eecution, or %isappearance an% 4&5 the etent of %amaes sustaine%. !he

Reference Or%er prescribe% the proce%ure, inclu%in the availment of local court reporters an%

interpreters as miht be re1uire%. Petitioner asserte% that the Reference Or%er impine% on the

eclusive -uris%iction of the probate court an% %isrear%e% the claim of the Philippine overnment

aainst the Marcos estate. It also conten%e% that the claim aainst the estate shoul% be file% before

the probate court an% that the Philippine overnment shoul% be accor%e% first preference in thepriority list of the estates cre%itors.

On &$ October (''0, respon%ent Ju%e illarama issue% a temporary restrainin

or%er)((*aainst the special masters an% persons actin in their stea%, an% set for hearin the petition

for the preliminary in-unction. !he sheriffs return)(&*in%icate% that service of the or%er +as

attempte% upon the resi%ent manaer of 3e+ Forl% ;otel, Ma:ati City, +here Mr. S+ift an% the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn12


21/74

other special masters +ere billete%. ;o+ever, the sheriff +as referre% to the uest services manaer,

+ho refuse% to accept a copy of the or%er.

"efore the hearin on the preliminary in-unction coul% ta:e place, petitioner file% an urent e"-

partemotion)(#*to cite herein private respon%ents, Mr. Robert S+ift, Atty. Ro%rio Domino, an%

other concerne% persons in contempt of court base% on me%ia reports that they vo+e% to continue the

ta:in of %epositions not+ithstan%in the issuance of a temporary restrainin or%er. Petitioner also

1uestione% the leal practice in the Philippines of Mr. S+ift, an American counsel +ho ha% no

special +or: permit an% license to practice.

On &? October (''0, respon%ent Ju%e illarama issue% an or%er )(0*%irectin private

respon%ents to comment on petitionerHs motion an% to sho+ cause +hy they shoul% not be cite% for

contempt. !he sheriffs return)($*confirme% that the or%er +as serve% upon Mr. S+ift throuh the

senior uest services officer of the 3e+ Forl% ;otel, Ma:ati City, an% personally upon Atty.

Domino at his office.

In the meantime, the Movement of Attorneys for "rotherhoo%, Interity an% 3ationalism, Inc.,

4MA"I3I5 file% in SP Proc. 3o. (7&6' a petition for leave to intervene as amicus curiaean%pro se

e" abundanti cautela.)(8*It note% the hostile, if not in%ifferent, attitu%e the Philippine overnment

continue% to %isplay to+ar%s its citiBens +hose human rihts +ere violate% an% -ust +hen the

victims ha% been vin%icate% by the rulin of the @.S. Court District of ;a+aii, it +as the Philippine

overnment +hich +oul% serve as an obstruction to their attainment of -ustice by suppressin their

free%om to epress the or%eal they ha% suffere%. MA"I3I un%erscore% that the ta:in of the

%epositions +as a compassionate reme%y rante% to the ilipino victims, +ho +ere spare% the

bur%en of testifyin in a forein court.

/i:e+ise, the Samahan n Ma >Detainees /aban sa Detensyon at Para sa Amnestiya

4S>/DA5, a human rihts nonovernment oraniBation, file% its special appearance +ith motion to

%issolve the temporary restrainin or%er an% to %eny +rit of preliminary in-unction. )(6*

In his Opposition )(?*Atty. Domino asserte% that the real motive of petitioner +as to prevent the

human rihts victims from recoverin +hat +as %ue them an% that it forot or conveniently chose

not to remember that in ebruary ('?6, it as:e% the @.S. Court of Appeals for the 3inth Circuit to

allo+ the human rihts suits aainst Marcos to procee% to trial. ;e also conten%e% that the motion

for issuance of a +rit of preliminary in-unction +as rossly insufficient both in form an% substance,since it +as not verifie% an% +as %eficient an% baseless. an% that petitioners reliance on Section (,

Rule 6# of the Rules of Court is misplace%. !he +or%s eclusive -uris%iction foun% therein shoul% be

limite% to procee%ins concernin the probate of the +ill an% settlement of the estate of the %ece%ent

an% shoul% not inclu%e other litiation for or aainst the estate. ;e arue% that MD/ 3o. ?07 is an

action for recovery of %amaes arisin out of the late Presi%entHs tortuous violation of international

la+. !he action is totally unrelate% to the probate procee%ins. ;e reasone% that the probate court is
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn18


22/74

of limite% -uris%iction an% that it can only eercise -uris%iction over the property of the estate in the

Philippines. Moreover, the probate court faile% to ac1uire -uris%iction over the special masters, since

they +ere never properly summone%.

Anent petitioners motion to cite them in contempt of court, Atty. Domino allee% that sai%

motion, +hich +as litiious in nature, +as a useless scrap of paper for lac: of the three%ay notice

for hearin. "esi%es, the temporary restrainin or%er coul% not be %irecte% to him because he +as

neither a special master nor a representative thereof. ;e +as a la+yer for the human rihts claimants.

In his plea%in )('*Mr. S+ift -oine% Atty. Domino in the latters opposition an% further allee%

that the petition for preliminary in-unction became moot an% aca%emic, as the special masters

voluntarily left the country on &8 October (''0, +ithout havin been serve% a copy of the temporary

restrainin or%er. ;e also raise% the settle% principle of comity, +hich re1uire% the probate court to

avoi% interference in the con%uct of -u%icial procee%ins in a forein country +arne% that petitioner

+as courtin %aner in encourain the probate court to collaterally attac: the -uris%iction of the

@.S. District Court of ;a+aii in violation of sai% principle an% claime% that the temporary

restrainin or%er coul% not be %irecte% to him, since he +as neither a special master nor a

representative thereof but a counsel of the human rihts victims.

On & 3ovember (''0, public respon%ent Ju%e illarama issue% the assaile% Or%er)&7*liftin the

&$ October (''$ !emporary Restrainin Or%er an% %enyin the motion for the issuance of a +rit of

preliminary in-unction on the roun% that petitioner has faile% to sho+ by convincin proof the

eistence of a clear an% positive riht +hich shoul% be protecte%. !he sai% or%er also %enie%, on

e1uity consi%erations, the motion to cite private respon%ents in contempt of court.

Petitioner no loner souht a reconsi%eration of the Or%er for the follo+in reasons9 4a5 such

motion +oul% serve no useful purpose because it +oul% raise the same points state% in the re-ecte%

motions 4b5 the error committe% by respon%ent Ju%e +as rave an% patent as to ma:e the

1uestione% or%er voi% 4c5 the relief souht in this petition is etremely urent because the Special

Masters or the persons actin in their stea% +ere ta:in the %epositions in furtherance an% in

implementation of the forein courts %irective an% 4%5 the issue raise% is purely a 1uestion of la+. )&(*

Instea%, petitioner file% the instant petition for certiorariallein that the trial court committe%

rave abuse of %iscretion in failin to consi%er that the issuance an% implementation of the reference

or%er of the ;a+aii court violate% the sovereinty of the Philippines an% impine% on the eclusive-uris%iction of the probate court.

In support thereof, petitioner invo:es Section ( of Rule 6# of the Rules of Court, +hich provi%es

in part as follo+s9
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn21


23/74

S>C. (. $here estate of deceased person settled. !he court first ta:in coniBance of the

settlement of the estate of the %ece%ent shall eercise -uris%iction to the eclusion of all other

courts. !he -uris%iction assume% by a court, so far as it %epen%s on the place of resi%ence of the

%ece%ent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be conteste% in a suit or procee%in, ecept in an

appeal from that court, in the oriinal case, or +hen the +ant of -uris%iction appears on the recor%.

It raises a contra%iction in public respon%ent Ju%e illaramas actuation in that in his Or%er of '

September (''0 he %eclare% that the @.S. District Court of ;a+aii coul% not assert its -uris%iction

over the assets of the estate an% eclu%e the -uris%iction veste% in the probate court. Sai% respon%ent

+as a+are that the purpose of the reference or%er +as to %etermine the amount of compensatory

%amaes to be chare% aainst the estate ho+ever, he chose to inore that it is the probate court

+hich eercises eclusive -uris%iction over the estate. ;e cannot, therefore, claim that petitioner

faile% to prove a clear an% positive riht +hich shoul% be protecte%.

Anent the issue of contempt, petitioner arues that the follo+in %ocumentary evi%ence

presente% before the probate court prove% that Messrs. S+ift an% Domino an% other concerne%

persons %efie% the probate courtHs temporary restrainin or%er9 4(5 Special Master Or%er 3o. 0 issue%

by the Supervisin Special Master, +hich confirme% notice of the probate courtHs temporary

restrainin or%er an% 4&5 letters )&&*of Mr. S+ift to Mr. James /inn, American counsel of Mrs.

Marcos 4a5 in%icatin that the plaintiffs in MD/ 3o. ?07 +oul% procee% +ith the ta:in of the

%epositions on &6 October (''0 at the office of Atty. Domino an% the 3e+ Forl% ;otel, 4b5 ivin

notice that he +oul% ta:e the %epositions of some class members on &? October (''0, an% 4c5

notifyin the continuation of his ta:in of the %epositions on &' October (''0. !hese

not+ithstan%in, respon%ent Ju%e %enie% petitionerHs motion to cite Messrs. S+ift an% Domino an%

other concerne% persons in contempt of court %ue to e1uity consi%erations. !he %enial +as tainte%+ith rave abuse of %iscretion.

In his comment file% on his behalf an% as counsel for the other private respon%ents, Atty.

Domino arues that the petition is moot an% aca%emic an% +ithout merit. !he act primarily souht

to be restraine%, +hich +as the ta:in of the %epositions, +as accomplishe% as of &6 3ovember

(''0 an% the transcripts ha% been submitte% to the @.S. District Court of ;a+aii. urthermore, the

probate court ha% no -uris%iction to a%-u%icate matters +hich ha% no reference or bearin to the

probate, such as MD/ 3o. ?07. "esi%es, there +as no la+ +hich prohibite% the ta:in of %epositions

in the Philippines for evi%entiary use in a pen%in case abroa%. !he estate of er%inan% >. Marcos

even finance% the ta:in of the %epositions. /astly, Atty. Domino reiterate% that he coul% not becite% for contempt for not havin been serve% a copy of the temporary restrainin or%er.

Mrs. Marcos subse1uently file% a motion for leave to intervene an% to a%mit its petition in

intervention, citin that petitioner faile% to %efen% the interest of the estate of her late husban%. She

claims that the procee%in un%erta:en by the special masters by virtue of the reference or%er +as a

continuation of the trial of MD/ 3o. ?07, consi%erin that 4(5 a reference is the trial an%
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn22


24/74

%etermination of 1uestions arisin in litiation by a person appointe% for that purpose by the court

+herein the case is pen%in )*4&5 a special master is an officer of the appointin court an% 4#5 the

applicable la+ pertainin to a reference an% a master is Section $# of the @.S. Rules of Civil

Proce%ure for the District Courts. Public respon%ent Ju%e then erre% in consi%erin the procee%in

as one for %eposition as a mo%e of %iscovery. Accor%inly, in %enyin the petition for in-unction he

ab%icate% the -uris%iction of the probate court in favor of the @.S. District Court of ;a+aii he even

ma%e a turnabout since earlier, in his ' September (''0 Or%er, he rule% that the ;a+aii Court coul%

not assert -uris%iction over the Marcos assets.

In a Comment submitte% on $ September (''$ in compliance +ith our resolution, petitioner

offere% no ob-ection to the intervention of Mrs. Marcos.

On 0 December (''$, +e re1uire% the parties to submit their respective memoran%a on +hy this

petition shoul% not be %ismisse% for havin become moot an% aca%emic consi%erin that the ta:in

of the %epositions by the special masters appointe% pursuant to the Reference Or%er issue% by the

District Court of ;a+aii ha% been complete% on &6 3ovember (''0.

Petitioner file% its Memoran%um urin us to %eci%e this case on the merits even if the act to be

en-oine% ha% alrea%y been consummate% in vie+ of the transcen%ental importance of the issues

involve%9 sovereinty of the Philippines an% the eclusive -uris%iction of the probate court of the

Philippines. !here is a compellin nee% to see: an incisive rulin from the hihest tribunal of the

lan% to uphol% the eclusive -uris%iction of the probate court an% to protect this nations sovereinty

from forein transressions an% preserve the same as supreme an% inviolable. !o buttress its plea, it

cites Salonga v. Cru% #ano )&0*+here +e resolve% the case on its merits even if the issue raise% ha%

become moot an% aca%emic.

Private respon%ents in their memoran%um, reiterate that the petition for the issuance of a +rit of

preliminary in-unction lac:e% the verification re1uire% un%er Section 0, Rule $? of the Rules of

Court. !hey li:e+ise submit that asi%e from the un%ispute% fact that the act souht to be en-oine%

ha% alrea%y been complete%, the -u%ment in MD/ 3o. ?07 became final on &6 January (''$ an%

that the estate of er%inan% >. Marcos +as a%-u%e% to pay close to @S& billion in %amaes.

Fe %ismiss the petition not only on the roun% of mootness +hich, enerally, +oul% -ustify

%ismissal. )&$*Fe %ismiss it also for lac: of merit.

It is settle% that +here the roun% invo:e% in a special civil action for certiorariun%er Rule 8$

of the Rules of Court is abuse of %iscretion as in this case the abuse must be rave as +here the

po+er is eercise% in an arbitrary or %espotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility or, it

must be so patent an% ross as to amount to an evasion of positive %uty or to a virtual refusal to

perform the %uty en-oine% or to act at all in contemplation of la+.)&8*!his reme%y then is

etraor%inary, an% its use is restricte% to truly etraor%inary cases. )&6*
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn27


25/74

!he plea%ins of the parties in this case an% the recor% of SP. Proc. 3o. (7&6' fail to sho+ that

respon%ent Ju%e illarama ha%, as chare% by petitioner, committe% rave abuse of %iscretion in

%enyin the petition for a +rit of preliminary in-unction aainst the special masters.

In the first place, the petition for a +rit of preliminary in-unction +as not verifie%.Section 0 of

Rule $? of the Rules of Court is very eplicit in its re1uirement that a preliminary in-unction may be

rante% only +hen the complaint is verifie%. Absence of verification ma:es an application or petition

for preliminary in-unction patently insufficient both in form an% substance. )&?*

In the secon% place, even if +e %isrear% the re1uirement of verification or consi%er the a%verse

parties in estoppel from raisin the issue +hen they allo+e% the petitioner to present evi%ence on the

petition, +e fin% that respon%ent Ju%e illarama committe% no error in hol%in that petitioner faile%

to prove that it ha% a clear an% positive riht to be protecte%.

Section #, Rule $? of the Rules of Court enumerates the roun%s for the issuance of a

preliminary in-unction9

4a5 !hat the plaintiff is entitle% to the relief %eman%e%, an% the +hole or part of such relief consists in

restrainin the commission or continuance of the acts complaine% of, or in the performance of an act

or acts, either for a limite% perio% or perpetually

4b5 !hat the commission or continuance of some act complaine% of %urin the litiation or the non

performance thereof +oul% probably +or: in-ustice to the plaintiff or

4c5 !hat the %efen%ant is %oin, threatens, or is about to %o, or is procurin or sufferin to be %one,

some act probably in violation of the plaintiffHs rihts respectin the sub-ect of the action, an%

ten%in to ren%er the -u%ment ineffectual.

@n%er this rule, a clear an% positive riht especially callin for -u%icial protection must be

sho+n. In-unction is not a reme%y to protect or enforce continent, abstract, or future rihts it +ill

not issue to protect a riht not in essean% +hich may never arise, or to restrain an act +hich %oes not

ive rise to a cause of action. !here must eist an actual riht. )&'*

Fe fail to comprehen% +hat clear an% positive riht petitioner has +hich may be violate% by the

issuance an% implementation of the Reference Or%er by the District Court of ;a+aii. Petitioner

see:s to establish such a riht by claimin that since the probate court +as the first to ta:e

coniBance of the settlement of the Marcos estate then pursuant to Section ( of Rule 6# of the Rules

of Court, it eercises -uris%iction thereon to the eclusion of all other courts an% that, accor%inly,

the District Court of ;a+aii cannot assert -uris%iction over the assets of sai% estate. !he arument is

li:e a loose cannon ball +ay off its taret.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn29


26/74

or one, petitioner is unable to %istinuish bet+een the eclusive riht on -uris%iction of the

probate court an% the riht contemplate% by the la+ on in-unction. or another, Section ( of Rule 6#

refers to courts in the Philippines an% simply means that once a special procee%in for the settlement

of the estate of a %ece%ent is file% in one of such courts, that court has eclusive -uris%iction over

sai% estate an% no other special procee%ins involvin the same sub-ect matter may be file% before

any other court. Since forein courts are not contemplate% in Section (, in no +ay then can it be

vali%ly maintaine% that the District Court of ;a+aii has encroache% upon, or impine% on, the

-uris%iction of the probate court by the issuance of the Reference Or%er. !he Reference Or%er cannot

be construe% as concernin or affectin the Marcos estate +ithin the eclusive -uris%iction of the

probate court. !he %uties of the special masters as %efine% in the Reference Or%er +ere to prepare

+ritten fin%ins for submission to the -ury rear%in 4a5 +hether the victims i%entifie% in the claim

forms suffere% torture, summary eecution or %isappearance, an% 4b5 the etent of the %amaes

sustaine%. 3o etravaant imaination can lea% us to a conclusion that such %uties %o not involve

any issue coniBable by the probate court.

3either is there merit to the claim that the issuance an% implementation of the Reference Or%er

violate% the sovereinty of the Philippines.

It is note+orthy that petitioner +as a+are of the pen%ency of MD/ 3o. ?07 of the District Court

of ;a+aii. In fact, it %i% not oppose the action on the contrary, it ure% the @.S. Court of Appeals for

the 3inth District to allo+ the trial of the human rihts litiation aainst the former

stronman. Petitioner even ehorte% the human rihts victims to pursue the -ustice +hich has elu%e%

them for many years. In itsAmicus Curiae"rief)#7*file% before the @.S. District Court of ;a+aii,

petitioner %eclare%9

!he overnment of the Republic of the Philippines support of their claims. "ecause the international

la+ principles are clear an% aree% upon by all nations, this -u%icial action %oes not have the capacity

of %isruptin forein relations bet+een the concerne% countries. !he 2overnment of the Republic of

the Philippines can state +ithout hesitation or reservation that its forein relations +ith the @nite%

States +ill not be a%versely affecte% if these human rihts claims aainst er%inan% Marcos are

hear% in @.S. courts an%, in fact, relations may +ell be improve% if ilipino citiBens see that -ustice

is available in @.S. courts. !he Philippine 2overnment has previously epresse% its %eep concern to

the @.S. 2overnment about the nee% for a -ust solution to the present suits aainst ePresi%ent

Marcos. See Opinion 3o. #0, s. ('?8, Ministry of Justice, Republic of the Philippines, %ate% April

, ('?8, attache% hereto as >hibit A. !he Philippine 2overnment no+ respectfully re1uests this;onorable Court to allo+ the present suits to procee% to trial.

As rear%s the %enial of the motion to cite Messrs. S+ift an% Domino in contempt of court, +e

rule that the same +as not tainte% +ith rave abuse of %iscretion. It must be recalle% that they +ere

not serve% a copy of the temporary restrainin or%er +hich they allee%ly %efie%.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/117733.htm#_edn30


27/74

7ERE8ORE,the petition is hereby DISMISS>D an% the Or%er of & 3ovember (''& of the

Reional !rial Court, "ranch ($8, Pasi City,is AIRM>D in toto. SO ORDERED.

MALOLES II VS P7ILIPPS

G.R. N%. 12;505. !*u!"# 31, 2000

!hese are petitions for revie+ on certiorariof the %ecisions of the !hirteenth an% the Special >ihth Divisions

of the Court of Appeals +hich rule% that petitioner has no riht to intervene in the settlement of the estate of

Dr. Arturo %e Santos. !he cases +ere consoli%ate% consi%erin that they involve the same parties an% some of

the issues raise% are the same.

8ACS:In (''$, Dr. Arturo De /os Santos file% a petition for probate of his +ill. ;e %eclare% that

he has no compulsory heirs an% that he is namin as sole %evisee an% leatee the Arturo %e Santos

oun%ation, Inc. 4AS5. !he name% eecutri is Pacita De /os Reyes Phillips. !he petition +as file%

in R!C Ma:ati "ranch 8(. Ju%e ernan%o 2orospe of sai% court %etermine% that Arturo is of soun%

min% an% +as not actin in %uress +hen he sine% his last +ill an% testament an% so "ranch 8(

allo+e% the last +ill an% testament on ebruary (8, (''8.

!en %ays from the allo+ance, Arturo %ie%. !hereafter, Pacita, as eecutri, file% a motion for the

issuance of letters of testamentary +ith "ranch 8(. She ho+ever +ith%re+ the motion but later on

refille% it +ith R!C Ma:ati "ranch 8$.

Mean+hile, a certain Octavio Maloles II file% a motion for intervention +ith "ranch 8( claimin that

as a net of :in 4him bein the full bloo%e% nephe+ of Arturo5 he shoul% be appointe% as the

a%ministrator of the estate an% that he is an heir.

Ju%e Aba% Santos of "ranch 8$ issue% an or%er transferrin the motion file% by Pacita to "ranch

8(. Ju%e Santos ratiocinate% that since the probate procee%in starte% in "ranch 8(, then it shoul%

be the same court +hich shoul% hear PacitaGs motion. "ranch 8( ho+ever refuse% to consoli%ate an%

referre% the case bac: to "ranch 8$. "ranch 8$ subse1uently consoli%ate% the case per refusal of

"ranch 8(. >ventually, "ranch 8$ allo+e% the motion for intervention file% by Octavio.

ISSUE:Fhether or not Octavio Maloles II has the riht to intervene in the probate procee%in.

7ELD9 3o. !he Supreme Court first clarifie% that the probate of +ill file% in "ranch 8( has alrea%y

terminate% upon the allo+ance of the +ill. ;ence +hen Pacita file% a motion +ith "ranch 8$, the

same is alrea%y a separate procee%in an% not a continuance of the no+ conclu%e% probate in "ranch

8(. !here is therefore no reason for "ranch 8$ to refer bac: the case to "ranch 8( as it initially %i%.urther even if the probate +as terminate%, un%er Rule 6# of the Rules of Court concernin the

venue of settlement of estates, it is provi%e% that +hen a case is file% in one branch, -uris%iction over

the case %oes not attach to the branch or -u%e alone, to the eclusion of the other branches.


28/74

Anent the issue of Octavio bein an heir, such contention has no merit. ;e is not an heir. Arturo %ie%

testate. 3et of :ins may only inherit if a person %ies intestate. In this case, Arturo left a vali% +ill

+hich epressly provi%e% that AS is the sole leatee an% %evisee of his estate.


29/74

MALOLES II VS COURT OF APPEALS, Gorospe

GR N%. 12;505. 31 !*u!"# 2000

M>3DOA, J.9

!hese are petitions for revie+ on certiorari of the %ecisions of the !hirteenth an% the Special >ihthDivisions of the Court of Appeals +hich rule% that petitioner has no riht to intervene in thesettlement of the estate of Dr. Arturo %e Santos. !he cases +ere consoli%ate% consi%erin that theyinvolve the same parties an% some of the issues raise% are the same.

!he facts +hich ave rise to these t+o petitions are as follo+s9

On July &7, (''$, Dr. Arturo %e Santos, ilipino an% a resi%ent of Ma:ati City, file% a petition for

probate of his +ill)(* in the Reional !rial Court, "ranch 8(, Ma:ati, %oc:ete% as Sp. Proc. 3o. M

0&. In his petition, Dr. De Santos allee% that he ha% no compulsory heirs that he ha% name% in

his +ill as sole leatee an% %evisee the Arturo %e Santos oun%ation, Inc. that he %ispose% by his

+ill his properties +ith an approimate value of not less than P&,777,777.77 an% that copies of sai%+ill +ere in the custo%y of the name% eecutri, private respon%ent Pacita %e los Reyes Phillips. A

copy of the +ill)&* +as annee% to the petition for probate.

On ebruary (8, (''8, Ju%e ernan%o . 2orospe, Jr. of R!CMa:ati, "ranch 8( issue% an or%errantin the petition an% allo+in the +ill. !he or%er rea%s9

On 7# Auust (''$, the Court issue% an Or%er settin the hearin of the petition on (& September

(''$, at ?9#7 ocloc: in the mornin, copies of +hich +ere serve% to Arturo %e Santos oun%ation,

Inc. an% Ms. Pacita %e los Reyes Phillips 4Officers Return, %ate% 70 September (''$ attache% to the

recor%s5. Fhen the case +as calle% for hearin on the %ate set, no oppositor appeare% nor any +ritten

opposition +as ever file% an% on motion of petitioner, he +as allo+e% to a%%uce his evi%ence in

support of the petition.

Petitioner personally appeare% before this Court an% +as place% on the +itness stan% an% +as

%irectly eamine% by the Court throuh Kfree +heelinK 1uestions an% ans+ers to ive this Court a

basis to %etermine the state of min% of the petitioner +hen he eecute% the sub-ect +ill. After the

eamination, the Court is convince% that petitioner is of soun% an% %isposin min% an% not actin on

%uress, menace an% un%ue influence or frau%, an% that petitioner sine% his /ast Fill an% !estament

on his o+n free an% voluntary +ill an% that he +as neither force% nor influence% by any other person

in sinin it.

urthermore, it appears from the petition an% the evi%ence a%%uce% that petitioner in his lifetime,

eecute% his /ast Fill an% !estament 4>hs. KAK, KA(K, KA&K, KA0K, KA$K5 at his resi%encesituate% at ' "auhinia corner Intsia Streets, orbes Par:, Ma:ati City sai% /ast Fill an% !estament

+as sine% in the presence of his three 4#5 +itnesses, namely, to +it9 Dr. >lpi%io alencia 4>hs. KA

8K, KA6K, KA?K, KA(8K, KA(8AK5, Atty. >%+ar% J. "erenuer 4>hs. KA#K, KA#AK, KA'K, KA

(7K, Q KA((K5, an% Atty. ictoria C. %elos Reyes 4>hs. KA(&K, KA(#K, KA(0K, KA(6K, Q KA

(?K5, +ho in turn, in the presence of the testator an% in the presence of each an% all of the +itnesses

sine% the sai% /ast Fill an% !estament an% %uly notariBe% before 3otary Public Anna Melissa /.


30/74

Rosario 4>h. KA($K5 on the actual eecution of the /ast Fill an% !estament, pictures +ere ta:en

4>hs. K"K to K"#K5.

Petitioner has no compulsory heirs an% Arturo %e Santos oun%ation, Inc., +ith a%%ress at 3o. '

"auhinia corner Intsia Streets, orbes Par:, Ma:ati City has been name% as sole leatee an% %eviseeof petitioners properties, real an% personal, approimately value% at not less than P& million, Ms.

Pacita %e los Reyes Phillips +as %esinate% as eecutor an% to serve as such +ithout a bon%.

rom the foreoin facts, the Court fin%s that the petitioner has substantially establishe% the material

alleations containe% in his petition. !he /ast Fill an% !estament havin been eecute% an% atteste%

as re1uire% by la+ that testator at the time of the eecution of the +ill +as of sane min% an%


31/74

testators estate that private respon%ent +as not fit to be the special a%ministrator of the estate an%

that petitioner shoul% be iven letters of a%ministration for the estate of Dr. De Santos.

On Auust &?, (''8, Ju%e Aba% Santos or%ere% the transfer of Sp. Proc. 3o. M0#0# to "ranch 8(,on the roun% that K)it* is relate% to the case before Ju%e 2orospe of R!C "ranch 8( . . .K

It appears, ho+ever, that in Sp. Proc. 3o. M0&, Ju%e 2orospe ha% %enie% on Auust &8, (''8petitioners motion for intervention. Petitioner brouht this matter to the Court of Appeals +hich, in a%ecision promulate% on ebruary (#, (''?, uphel% the %enial of petitioners motion for intervention.

Mean+hile, Ju%e 2orospe issue% an or%er, %ate% September 0, (''8, returnin the recor%s of Sp.Proc. 3o. M0#0# to "ranch 8$ on the roun% that there +as a pen%in case involvin the >state ofDece%ent Arturo %e Santos pen%in before sai% court. !he or%er rea%s9 Sppe%

Actin on the ORD>R %ate% &? Auust (''8 of "ranch 8$, this Court, transferrin this case to this"ranch 8( on the roun% that this case is relate% +ith a case before this Court, let this case bereturne% to "ranch 8$ +ith the information that there is no relate% case involvin the >S!A!> OD>C>D>3! AR!@RO D> SA3!OS pen%in before this "ranch.

!here is, ho+ever, a case file% by AR!@RO D> SA3!OS, as petitioner un%er Rule 68 of the Rulesof Court for the Allo+ance of his +ill %urin his lifetime %oc:ete% as SP. PROC. 3O. M0& +hich+as alrea%y %eci%e% on (8 ebruary (''8 an% has become final.

It is note% on recor%s of Case 3o. M0& that after it became final, herein Petitioner Pacita %e los

Reyes Phillips file% a MO!IO3 OR !;> ISS@A3C> O />!!>RS !>S!AM>3!AR=, +hich

+as subse1uently +ith%ra+n after this Court, %urin the hearin, alrea%y rule% that the motion coul%

not be a%mitte% as the sub-ect matter involves a separate case un%er Rule 6? of the Rules of Court,

an% movant +ith%re+ her motion an% file% this case 43o. 0#0#5.

Octavio %e Santos Maloles )II* file% a MO!IO3 OR I3!>R>3!IO3 before Case 3o. M0&an% this motion +as alrea%y D>3I>D in the or%er 4"ranch 8(5 of &8 Auust (''8 li:e+ise for thesame roun%s that the matter is for a separate case to be file% un%er Rule 6? of the Rules of Courtan% cannot be inclu%e% in this case file% un%er Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.

It is further note% that it is a matter of policy that consoli%ation of cases must be approve% by thePresi%in Ju%es of the affecte% "ranches.

Initially, in his %ecision %ate% September , (''8, Ju%e Aba% Santos appeare% firm in his positionthat K

. . . it +oul% be improper for 4"ranch 8$5 to hear an% resolve the petition 4Sp. Proc. 3o. M0#0#5,K

consi%erin that the probate procee%ins +ere commence% +ith "ranch 8(. ;e thus or%ere% the

transfer of the recor%s bac: to the latter branch. ;o+ever, he later recalle% his %ecision an% too:

coniBance of the case Kto epe%ite the procee%ins.K !hus, in his Or%er, %ate% October &(, (''8, he

state%9


32/74

Considering the refusal of the &on. (ernando . 0orospe, !r. of 1ranch 23 to continue hearing this

case not+ithstanding the fact that said branch began the probate proceedings of the estate of the

deceased and must therefore continue to e"ercise its jurisdiction to the e"clusion of all others, until

the entire estate of the testator had been partitioned and distributed as per Order dated 45

September 3662, this branch )'egional rial Court 1ranch 27* shall ta8e cogni%ance of the petition

if only to e"pedite the proceedings, and under the concept that the 'egional rial Court of Ma8atiCity is but one court.

urnish a copy of this or%er to the Office of the Chief -ustice an% the Office of the CourtA%ministrator, of the Supreme Court the ;on. ernan%o . 2orospe, Jr. Pacita De /os ReyesPhillips, Petitioner an% Octavio %e Santos Maloles, Intervenor.

On 3ovember 0, (''8, Ju%e Aba% Santos rante% petitioners motion for intervention. Private

respon%ent move% for a reconsi%eration but her motion +as %enie% by the trial court. She then file% a

petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals +hich, on ebruary &8, (''6, ren%ere% a %ecision)8*

settin asi%e the trial courts or%er on the roun% that petitioner ha% not sho+n any riht or interest to

intervene in Sp. Proc. 3o. M0#0#.

ISSUES:

(. Fhether or not the ;onorable Reional !rial Court Ma:ati, "ranch 8( has lost -uris%iction

to procee% +ith the probate procee%ins upon its issuance of an or%er allo+in the +ill of Dr.

Arturo %e Santos

&. Fhether or not the ;onorable 4Reional !rial Court Ma:ati, "ranch 8$5 ac1uire%

-uris%iction over the petition for issuance of letters testamentary file% by 4private5 respon%ent.

#. Fhether or not the petitioner, bein a cre%itor of the late Dr. Arturo %e Santos, has a riht to

intervene an% oppose the petition for issuance of letters testamentary file% by the respon%ent.

0. Fhether or not 4private5 respon%ent is uilty of forum shoppin in filin her petition forissuance of letters testamentary +ith the Reional !rial Court Ma:ati, "ranch 8$ :no+infully +ell that the probate procee%ins involvin the same testate estate of the %ece%ent isstill pen%in +ith the Reional !rial Court Ma:ati, "ranch 8(.

7ELD: irst. Petitioner conten%s that the probate procee%ins in "ranch 8( of R!CMa:ati %i% notterminate upon the issuance of the or%er allo+in the +ill of Dr. De Santos. Citin the cases ofSantiesteban v. Santiesteban)6* an% !ale v. Manalo, he arues that the procee%ins must continueuntil the estate is fully %istribute% to the la+ful heirs, %evisees, an% leatees of the testator, pursuant

to Rule 6#, ( of the Rules of Court. Conse1uently, petitioner conten%s that "ranch 8$ coul% notla+fully act upon private respon%ents petition for issuance of letters testamentary.

!he contention has no merit.

In cases for the probate of +ills, it is +ellsettle% that the authority of the court is limite% toascertainin the etrinsic vali%ity of the +ill, i.e., +hether the testator, bein of soun% min%, freelyeecute% the +ill in accor%ance +ith the formalities prescribe% by la+.


33/74

Or%inarily, probate procee%ins are institute% only after the %eath of the testator, so much so that,after approvin an% allo+in the +ill, the court procee%s to issue letters testamentary an% settle theestate of the testator. !he cases cite% by petitioner are of such nature. In fact, in most -uris%ictions,courts cannot entertain a petition for probate of the +ill of a livin testator un%er the principle ofambulatory nature of +ills.

;o+ever, Art. ?#? of the Civil Co%e authoriBes the filin of a petition for probate of the +ill file% bythe testator himself. It provi%es9

Civil Co%e, Art. ?#?. 3o +ill shall pass either real or personal property unless it is prove% an%allo+e% in accor%ance +ith the Rules of Court.

!he testator himself may, %urin his lifetime, petition the court havin -uris%iction for the allo+anceof his +ill. In such case, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court for the allo+ance of +illsafter the testators %eath shall overn. Miso

!he Supreme Court shall formulate such a%%itional Rules of Court as may be necessary for theallo+ance of +ills on petition of the testator.

Sub-ect to the riht of appeal, the allo+ance of the +ill, either %urin the lifetime of the testator orafter his %eath, shall be conclusive as to its %ue eecution.

Rule 68, ( li:e+ise provi%es9

Sec. 3 $ho may petition for the allo+ance of +ill. - Any e"ecutor, devisee, or legatee named in a

+ill, or any other person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the death of the testator,

petition the court having jurisdiction to have the +ill allo+ed, +hether the same be in his possession

or not, or is lost or destroyed.

!he testator himself may, %urin his lifetime, petition in the court for the allo+ance of his +ill.

!he rationale for allo+in the probate of +ills %urin the lifetime of testator has been eplaine% bythe Co%e Commission thus9

Most of the cases that reach the courts involve either the testamentary capacity of the testator or the

formalities a%opte% in the eecution of +ills

specpro 1st set of cases

Documents