0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
39 vizualizări2 pagini
This case involves determining the legal heirs of Jose Q. Portugal. Portugal was married twice, first to Paz Lazo with whom he had a daughter Leonila, and second to Isabel de la Puerta with whom he had a son Jose Douglas Portugal Jr. Leonila executed an affidavit claiming sole inheritance of a parcel of land owned by Portugal. The son and second wife filed a case arguing Leonila committed perjury. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to determine heirship in a civil case. However, the Supreme Court ruled a separate proceeding to determine heirship is not required here since it can be determined in the civil case, and doing so would be impractical and burdensome given there is only one property at
This case involves determining the legal heirs of Jose Q. Portugal. Portugal was married twice, first to Paz Lazo with whom he had a daughter Leonila, and second to Isabel de la Puerta with whom he had a son Jose Douglas Portugal Jr. Leonila executed an affidavit claiming sole inheritance of a parcel of land owned by Portugal. The son and second wife filed a case arguing Leonila committed perjury. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to determine heirship in a civil case. However, the Supreme Court ruled a separate proceeding to determine heirship is not required here since it can be determined in the civil case, and doing so would be impractical and burdensome given there is only one property at
This case involves determining the legal heirs of Jose Q. Portugal. Portugal was married twice, first to Paz Lazo with whom he had a daughter Leonila, and second to Isabel de la Puerta with whom he had a son Jose Douglas Portugal Jr. Leonila executed an affidavit claiming sole inheritance of a parcel of land owned by Portugal. The son and second wife filed a case arguing Leonila committed perjury. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to determine heirship in a civil case. However, the Supreme Court ruled a separate proceeding to determine heirship is not required here since it can be determined in the civil case, and doing so would be impractical and burdensome given there is only one property at
(Determination of heirship) FACTS: On November 25, 1942, Jose Q. Portugal (Portugal) married Paz Lazo and had a daughter Leonila. On May 22, 1948, Portugal married petitioner Isabel de la Puerta and had a boy whom she named Jose Douglas Portugal Jr., On May 16, 1968, Portugal and his four (4) siblings executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Waiver of Rights over the estate of their father, Mariano Portugal, where Portugals siblings waived their rights, interests, and participation over a 155 sq. m. parcel of land located in Caloocan in his favor. The TCT was registered in the name of Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C. Lazo. Paz and Portugal died, so Leonila executed an Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person adjudicating to herself the Caloocan parcel of land. The son and the second wife filed an ORDINARY ACTION For annulment of the affidavit and the TCT, arguing that the daughter perjured her affidavit. During pre-trial conference, one of the issues presented were: which of the marriages were valid and who were the heirs of the deceased. Evidence were presented before the TC but TC dismissed the action on the ground of lack of COA (no determination yet of the rights of the second family as heirs) and lack of jurisdiction (a TC in an ordinary civil action cannot rule on the issue of determination of heirship). CA affirmed TC judgment. ISSUE: whether petitioners have to institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs before they can pursue the case for annulment of respondents Affidavit of Adjudication and of the TCT issued in her name. RULING: No need to institute a special proceeding. Leonila, believing rightly or wrongly that she was the sole heir to Portugals estate, executed the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication, which 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, in the order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or in case he did, he failed to name an executor therein. Petitioners claim, however, to be the exclusive heirs of Portugal, is within the proper jurisdiction of a probate or intestate court. However, in the present case the only property of the intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it to a special proceeding which could be long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status of petitioners as heirs is not only impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and expenses of an administration proceeding. In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compelling reason to still subject Portugals estate to administration proceedings since a determination of petitioners status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners, 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 as to: which marriage is valid; who are the legal heirs; the due issuance of the TCT; and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to their claim.