Republic vs.
CA and Solano  The SolGen, representing the RTC and RD, argues that
Doctrine: A claimant to an escheated property must file his
claim "within five (5) years from the date of such judgment,
such person shall have possession of and title to the same, or
if sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him for
the proceeds, after deducting the estate; but a claim not made
shall be barred forever."
Facts:
 The late Elizabeth Hankins donated 2 parcels of land
located in Pasay City in favor of Amada Solano for her
dedicated service as her personal domestic helper.
 Solano alleged that she misplaced the deeds of
donation
 The Republic filed a petition for the escheat of the
estate of Hankins in 1987.
 The spouse of Solano filed a motion for intervention
but was denied by the RTC.
 On 1989, The RTC decided in favor of the Republic and
ordered that the TCTs of the subject lands be cancelled
and a new one be issued in the name of Pasay City.
 On Jan. 28, 1997, Solano claims that she found the
deeds of donation. She then filed a petition to annul
the lower court’s judgment alleging that: (1) the
properties were not part of Hawkins estate when she
died as they were validly donated to her; and (2) the
decision is legally infirm as the properties should be
escheated in favor of the Republic of the Philippines,
not the Pasay City Government.
(1) the CA has no jurisdiction over the nature of the
action; and (2) that the cause of action was barred by
the statute of limitations.
 CA: in favor of Solano.
Issue:
(1) WON Solano, not being an heir but a done, has the
personality to be a claimant in escheat proceedings -
Yes
(2) WON the 5 year prescriptive period under Rule 91 has
already prescribed – Yes
(3) WON the subject properties formed part of Hankin’s
estate - Yes
Ruling:
(1) Yes
In an escheat proceeding, any person alleging to have a direct
right or interest in the property sought to be escheated is
likewise an interested party and may appear and oppose the
petition for escheat.
(2)
A claimant to an escheated property must file his claim
"within five (5) years from the date of such judgment, such
person shall have possession of and title to the same, or if
sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him for
the proceeds, after deducting the estate; but a claim not made
shall be barred forever."
In the case at bar, the escheat judgment was handed down by
as early as 1989 but it was only on 1997, more or less seven
(7) years after, when private respondent decided to contest
the escheat judgment in the guise of a petition for annulment
of judgment before the Court of Appeals. Obviously, private
respondent's belated assertion of her right over the escheated
properties militates against recovery.

(3) Yes
Where a person comes into an escheat proceeding as a
claimant, the burden is on such intervenor to establish his title
to the property and his right to intervene. In the absence of of
any clear and convincing proof showing that the subject lands
had been conveyed by Hankins to private respondent Solano,
the same still remained, at least before the escheat, part of
the estate of the decedent and the lower court was right not
to assume otherwise.