Case Digests SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS PDF

Preview

Summary

**TOPIC: Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs, when allowed ERNESTO M. GUEVARA VS. ROSARIO GUEVARA G. No. L- December 29, 1943** FACTS: When Victorino L. Guevarra died his last will and testament was never presented to the court for probate, nor has any administration proceeding ever ...

Description

TOPIC: Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs, when allowed 1. ERNESTO M. GUEVARA VS. ROSARIO GUEVARA G.R. No. L-48840 December 29, 1943 FACTS: When Victorino L. Guevarra died his last will and testament was never presented to the court for probate, nor has any administration proceeding ever been instituted for the settlement of his estate. His son, Ernesto M. Guevara possessed the land adjudicated to him in the registration proceeding and to have disposed of various portions thereof for the purpose of paying the debts left by his father. Rosario Guevara did nothing judicially to invoke the testamentary dispositions made therein in her favor. She commenced the present action against Ernesto M. Guevara and it was only during the trial of this case that she presented the will to the court, not for the purpose of having it probated but only to prove that the deceased Victorino L. Guevara had acknowledged her as his natural daughter. Upon that proof of acknowledgment, she claimed her share of the inheritance from him. ISSUE: Whether or not the procedure adopted by the plaintiff (respondent herein) Rosario Guevara was legal? RULING: No. The presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandatory and its allowance by the court is essential and indispensable to its efficacy. Under section 1 of Rule 74, in relation to Rule 76, if the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and legatees desire to make an extrajudicial partition of the estate, they must first present that will to the court for probate and divide the estate in accordance with the will. In the instant case there is no showing that the various legatees other than the present litigants had received their respective legacies or that they had knowledge of the existence and of the provisions of the will. Their right under the will cannot be disregarded, nor may those rights be obliterated on account of the failure or refusal of the custodian of the will to present it to the court for probate.

2. Topic: Affidavit of self-adjudication by sole heir JOSEPH CUA vs. GLORIA A. VARGAS G.R. No. 156536 October 31, 2006 Facts: A parcel of residential land was left behind by the late Paulina Vargas. A notarized Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs was executed by and among the heirs, partitioning and adjudicating unto themselves the lot in question and was published for 3 weeks. An Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs with Sale was again executed by and among the same

heirs over the same property and also with the same sharings. Only 5 out of 9 heirs signed the document and their respective shares were sold to Joseph Cua. After knowing of such sale to petitioner, Gloria Vargas tried to redeem the property. When the offer to redeem was refused, Gloria Vargas and her children filed a case for annulment of Extra Judicial Settlement and Legal Redemption of the lot with the MTC.

Issue: Whether heirs are deemed constructively notified and bound, regardless of their failure to participate therein, by an extrajudicial settlement and partition of estate when the extrajudicial settlement and partition has been duly published. Ruling: No. The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was notice after the fact of execution. Pursuant to Rule 74, it contemplates a notice that has been sent out or issued before any deed of settlement and/or partition is agreed upon, and not after such an agreement has already been executed as what happened in the instant case with the publication of the first deed of extrajudicial settlement among heirs. The requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors and was never intended to deprive heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent’s estate. In this connection, the records of the present case confirm that respondents never signed either of the settlement documents, having discovered their existence only shortly before the filing of the present complaint. Hence, following Rule 74, these extrajudicial settlements do not bind respondents, and the partition made without their knowledge and consent is invalid insofar as they are concerned.

3. Topic: Affidavit of Self-Adjudication by Sole Heir ISABEL P. PORTUGAL vs. LEONILA PORTUGAL-BELTRAN G.R. No. 155555. August 16, 2005 Facts: Jose Q. Portugal (Portugal) married Paz Lazo. Paz gave birth to Aleli, herein respondent. Subsequently, Portugal married Isabel de la Puerta and gave birth to Jose Douglas Portugal Jr., her herein co-petitioner. A parcel of land at Caloocan was in the name Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C. Lazo, as stated in the TCT. When Portugal died intestate, Aleli executed an "Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person" adjudicating to herself the Caloocan parcel of land. A new TCT was given in Aleli’s name. Petitioners filed before the RTC of Caloocan a complaint against respondent for annulment of the Affidavit of Adjudication executed by her and the transfer certificate of title issued in her name.

Issue: Whether respondent had established that she is the sole heir of the deceased, thus, ownership of the land is undisputable. Ruling: No. The execution of the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication under the second sentence of Rule 74, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court is an exception to the general rule that when a person dies leaving a property, it should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator. 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; a judicial partition does not prevent the heir from bringing an action to obtain his share, provided the prescriptive period therefor has not elapsed. The better practice, 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 In fine, the trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the trial and render a decision thereon upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.

TOPIC: Affidavit of Self-Adjudication by Sole Heir 4 Vda de dela Rosa vs. Heirs of Vda de Damian G.R. No. 155733 January 27, 2006 CORONA, J. FACTS: Spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia died intestate. The RTC declared petitioner and her co-claimants as the only legal heirs of the deceased Josefa while it declared the intervenor Guillerma Rustia as the sole and only surviving heir of the late Guillermo Rustia. Thus, the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication of the estate of Josefa Delgado executed by the late Guillermo Rustia was set aside and declared of no force and effect. On appeal, the CA remanded to the trial court the issue of the validity of the affidavit of selfadjudication executed by Guillermo Rustia for further proceedings to determine the extent of the shares of Jacoba Delgado-Encinas and the children of Gorgonio Delgado thereby affected.

Hence, this recourse. ISSUE: Whether the subject affidavit of self-adjudication is valid. RULING: NO. Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that an adjudication by an heir of the decedent’s entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit is allowed only if he is the sole heir to the estate. Here, Josefa Delgado has five (5) full-blood siblings and one (1) half-blood brother. Accordingly, all of them are entitled to inherit from Josefa. Guillermo could not have validly adjudicated Josefa’s estate all to himself. Thus, the affidavit of self-adjudication is to be annulled.

5. Topic: Summary Settlement of estates of small value, when allowed Case: Sisenando Abarro vs Tomasa de Guia GR No. 47317 / 10 June 1941

FACTS: In the summary settlement of the estate of the deceased, Januaria Gonzalez, the court below ordered the heirs to pay the creditor of the estate, Sisenando Abarro, the amount of P800, with legal interest. No payment having been made, the lot which is the only property left by the deceased, was ordered sold at public auction and awarded to the creditor himself as the highest bidder thereat. The sheriff’s deed of sale contained a proviso to the effect that the property was subject to redemption, as provided by law, within one year. Upon the expiration of such period with no redemption having been made by the heirs, the purchaser filed a motion in court praying that the sheriff be ordered to execute a final deed of sale in his behalf. Tomasa de Guia, heir of the deceased, opposed the motion, alleging that she had delivered to the sheriff the amount of P1,056.40 for the redemption of the property. This allegation was found by the court to be true and, accordingly, the motion filed by the purchaser was overruled. Hence, his appeal. ISSUE: Whether the property in the administration and liquidation of the estate of Januaria Gonzales is subject to legal redemption?

HELD: No. The validity of the sheriff’s sale is not questioned, and brushing aside considerations on other questions not duly raised, the SC held that Tomasa de Guia has no right to redeem and that the sale made in favor of Sisenando Abarro is final. In the administration and liquidation of the estate of a deceased person, sales ordered by the probate court for payment of debts are final and are not subject to legal redemption. Unlike in ordinary execution sales, there is no legal provision allowing redemption in the sale of property for payment of debts of a deceased person. in the intestate proceedings of Josefa Jimenez, the Court made the following observations: " From the outset, the purchaser acted undoubtedly under the erroneous impression that legal redemption, as noted by the sheriff on the deed, was valid, accepting thus the deed without any objection whatsoever. But, as a general rule, and under the circumstances of the case, no estoppel attaches to validate a contract or any part thereof that in itself is contrary to law.

6. TOPIC: Remedies of aggrieved parties after extra-judicial settlement of estate VICTORIA BRINGAS PEREIRA vs CA G.R. No. L-81147 June 20, 1989 FACTS: Andres de Guzman Pereira, an employee of the Philippine Air Lines, passed away without a will. He was survived by his legitimate spouse of ten months, Victoria Bringas Pereira, and his sister Rita Pereira Nagac, the herein private respondent. Private respondent instituted a special proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor pertaining to the estate of the deceased Andres de Guzman Pereira, alleging the following: that she and Victoria Bringas Pereira are the only surviving heirs of the deceased; that the deceased left no will; that there are no creditors of the deceased and that the deceased left several properties. On the other hand, petitioner filed her opposition and motion to dismiss the petition of private respondent alleging that there exists no estate of the deceased for purposes of administration and praying in the alternative, that if an estate does exist,

the letters of administration relating to the said estate be issued in her favor as the surviving spouse. ISSUE: Whether or not a judicial administration proceeding is necessary where there are no debts left by the decedent. RULING: NO. The general rule is that when a person dies leaving property, the same should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator in case the deceased left no will, or in case he had left one, should he fail to name an executor therein. An exception to this rule is when all the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from the estate, they may agree in writing to partition the property without instituting the judicial administration or applying for the appointment of an administrator. Here, there are only two surviving heirs, a wife of ten months and a sister, both of age. The parties admit that there are no debts of the deceased to be paid. What is at once apparent is that these two heirs are not in good terms. The only conceivable reason why private respondent seeks appointment as administratrix is for her to obtain possession of the alleged properties of the deceased for her own purposes, since these properties are presently in the hands of petitioner who supposedly disposed of them fraudulently. This is not a compelling reason which will necessitate a judicial administration of the estate of the deceased. Hence, judicial administration proceeding is not necessary.

TOPIC: TWO-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD PEZA vs. FERNANDEZ G.R. No. 138971 June 6, 2001 FACTS: The case is regarding a lot whereby Jorgea Igot-Soroño, Frisca Booc and Felix Cuizon executed an Extrajudicial Partition on, in which they declared themselves as the only surviving heirs of the registered owners of the aforesaid lot. Consequently, they were issued TCT No. 12467. Considering that the said lot was among the objects of expropriation proceedings and pending before it, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lapu-Lapu City rendered a partial Decision approving the Compromise Agreement entered into between the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) and the new registered owners of Lot No. 4673; namely, Jorgea Igot-Soroño, Frisca Booc and Felix Cuizon. Consequently, petitioner acquired title over Lot No. 4673 and the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 12788 issued by the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City.

Private respondents filed with the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City a Complaint for Nullity of Documents, Redemption and Damages. The Complaint alleged that herein private respondents had been excluded from the extrajudicial settlement of the estate. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground of prescription. It avers that private respondents’ claim against the subject property has already prescribed, because the two-year period within which an unduly excluded heir may seek a new settlement of the estate had already lapsed by the time private respondents filed their action with the trial court. Petitioner further argues that private respondents received constructive notice in view of the registration of the extrajudicial partition with the Registry of Deeds. According to petitioner, the two-year period commenced from July 8, 1982, the date of inscription of the extrajudicial settlement on OCT No. 2537.The Motion was denied. A Motion for Reconsideration thereof was likewise denied. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals through a Petition for Certiorari, the CA dismissed the Petition. Hence, this recourse. ISSUE: Whether private respondents’ claim against expropriated property had prescribed. RULING: YES. A perusal of the provision of Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court will show that persons unduly deprived of their lawful participation in a settlement may assert their claim only within the two-year period after the settlement and distribution of the estate. This prescription period does not apply, however, to those who had no part in or had no notice of the settlement. Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, is not meant to be a statute of limitations. Moreover, by no reason or logic can one contend that an extrajudicial partition, being merely an ex parte proceeding, would affect third persons who had no knowledge thereof. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied, either, that by its registration in the manner provided by law, a transaction may be known actually or constructively. In the present case, private respondents are deemed to have been constructively notified of the extrajudicial settlement by reason of its registration and annotation in the certificate of title over the subject lot. From the time of registration, private respondents had two (2) years or until July 8, 1984, within which to file their objections or to demand the appropriate settlement of the estate. The only exception to the above-mentioned prescription is when the title remains in the hands of the heirs who have fraudulently caused the partition of the subject property or in those of their transferees who cannot be considered innocent purchasers for value.

ESCHEAT 8 G.R. No. L-45460 February 25, 1938 The Municipal Council Of San Pedro, Laguna Vs. Colegio De San Jose Imperial, J.: FACTS: This case was commenced by a petition filed by the petitioners wherein they claim the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasa by the right of escheat. The Colegio de San Jose, Inc., assailed the petition upon the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and decide the case and that the petition does not allege sufficient facts to entitle the applicants to the remedy prayed for; and asked that the petition be finally dismissed. Carlos Young intervened seeking for its dismissal. The petitioner objected but the court overruled the objection to the appearance and intervention in the case by the Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young; and dismissed the petition for escheat. The petitioners appealed attributing to the court an error in not excluding the appellees Carlos Young and Colegio de San Jose, Inc., from the proceedings, among others. ISSUE: Whether the court erred in allowing the appearance of Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young. RULING: NO Escheat, under sections 750 and 751, is a proceeding whereby the real and personal property of a deceased person become the property of the State upon his death without leaving any will or legal heirs. In a special proceeding for escheat under section 750 and 751 the petitioner is not the sole and exclusive interested party. Any person alleging to have a direct right or interest in the property sought to be escheated is likewise and interest and necessary party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat. In the present case the Colegio de San Jose, Inc., and Carlos Young appeared alleging to have a material interest in the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasa; and the former because it claims to be the exclusive owner of the hacienda, and the latter because he claim to be the lessee thereof under a contract legality entered with the former. In view of these allegations it is erroneous to hold that the said parties are without right either to appear in case or to substantiate their respective alleged right.

TOPIC: ESCHEAT Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz R. Bakunawa G.R. No. 192413; June 13, 2012

FACTS: The decedent, spouses Bakunawa, were registered owners of six (6) parcels of land which were sequestered by the PCGG. Sometime in 1990, Spouses Bakunawa sold these lots to Millan, the latter made a downpayment. However, since Millan did not meet the conditions set in the contract of sale, the Spouses Bakunawa moved for the rescission of the contract and offered to return the down payment to Millan, by taking out a Manager’s Check from RCBC through their company, Hi-Tri Development, payable to Rosmil, Millan’s Company, but the latter refused to accept. Spouses Bakunawa retains possession of said check. Republic, through the OSG, filed with the RTC an action for Escheat against certain deposits, credits, and unclaimed balances held by the branches of various banks in the Philippines, including the amount of Manager’s Check payable to Rosmil. The trial court declared the amounts, subject of the special proceedings, escheated to the Republic and ordered them deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines and credited in favor of the Republic, including an unclaimed balance in the amount of P 1,019,514.29, maintained by RCBC in its Ermita Business Center branch. Consequently, respondents moved for reconsideration, but was denied. On appeal, CA reversed the decision of the RTC. ISSUE: Whether or not the allocated funds may be escheated in favor of the Republic HELD: NO. We find sufficient grounds to affirm the CA on th...