ISABEL P. PORTUGAL and JOSE DOUGLAS PORTUGAL JR., Petitioners, vs. LEONILA PORTUGAL-BELTRAN, Respondent Issue: Facts: Whether or not the petitioners have to institute a Jose Portugal (Portugal, Sr.) contracted two marriages. special proceeding to determine their status as heirs before they can pursue the case for annulment The first marriage is with Paz Lazo in 1942 whom he had a daughter named Leonila Perpetua Aleli Portugal (April 1950), of respondent’s Affidavit of Adjudication and of the the herein respondent, and the second marriage is with Isabel TCT issued in her name. de la Puerta in 1948, who gave birth to a boy named Jose Douglas Portugal, Jr. (Sept. 1949), the petitioners herein. Ruling: NO. In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or By virtue of a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Waiver of wrongly that she was the sole heir to Portugal’s estate, Rights executed by Portugal Sr. and his 4 siblings, over the executed on February 15, 1988 the questioned Affidavit estate of their father, a parcel of land n Caloocan was issued of Adjudication under the second sentence of Rule 74, a TCT in the name of “Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C. Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an Lazo”. exception to the general rule that when a person dies Paz died in 1984, while Portugal Sr. died intestate in 1985. leaving a property, it should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified In 1988, Leonila executed an “Affidavit of Adjudication by administrator, in the order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person”, adjudicating to in case the deceased left no will, or in case he did, he herself the Caloocan parcel of land, and was subsequently failed to name an executor therein. registered (1988) in her name “Leonila Portugal Beltran, married to Merardo M. Beltran, Jr.” Petitioners claim, however, to be the exclusive heirs of Portugal. A probate or intestate court, no doubt, has In 1996, Isabel and Portugal, Jr. (petitioners) filed a complaint against Leonila for cancellation of Affidavit of Adjudication and jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of a deceased. TCT issued in her name, alleging that Leonila is not related whatsoever to the deceased Portugal, Sr., hence, not entitled It appearing, however, that in the present case the to inherit the Caloocan parcel of land, and accordingly prayed only property of the intestate estate of Portugal is that said TCT be cancelled and a new one be issued in their the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it, under (petitioner’s) name. the circumstances of the case, to a special proceeding which could be long, hence, not A Pre-Trial Order was issued, citing the following issues to be expeditious, just to establish the status of resolved, to wit: petitioners as heirs is not only impractical; it is a. Which of the two (2) marriages contracted by the burdensome to the estate with the costs and deceased Jose Q. Portugal Sr., is valid? expenses of an administration proceeding. And it is b. Which of the plaintiff . . . Jose Portugal Jr. and defendant superfluous in light of the fact that the parties to the Leonila P. Beltran is the legal heir of the deceased Jose civil case – subject of the present case, could and Q. Portugal Sr.? had already in fact presented evidence before the c. Whether or not TCT No. 159813 was issued in due course trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case and can still be contested by plaintiffs. upon the issues it defined during pre-trial. d. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their claims under the complaint. (Underscoring supplied) In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, After trial, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction without resolving the issues there being no compelling reason to still subject as stated in the pre-trial order, on the ground that petitioner’s Portugal’s estate to administration proceedings since a status and right as putative heirs had not been established determination of petitioners’ status as heirs could before a probate court. be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners, the trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence Citing the case of Heirs of Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay, the presented by the parties during the trial and render Supreme Court in this case ruled that the establishment of a a decision thereon upon the issues it defined during status, a right, or a particular fact is remedied through a pre-trial, which bear repeating, to wit: special proceeding, not an ordinary civil action. Thus, the court, not being a probate court, is without jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff’s cause to establish their status and right 1. Which of the two (2) marriages contracted by the herein. deceased Jose Q. Portugal, is valid; 2. Which of the plaintiff, Jose Portugal Jr. and On appeal to CA, the petitioners cite the case of Carino vs. defendant Leonila P. Beltran is the legal heir of the Carino. In this case, the SC ratiocinates that the court may deceased Jose Q. Portugal (Sr.); pass upon the validity of marriage even after the death of the 3. Whether or not TCT No. 159813 was issued in due parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly instituted to course and can still be contested by plaintiffs; question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential 4. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their claim to the determination of the case. under the complaint. However, the CA found Carino to be inapplicable. The appellate court held that in Carino case, the main issue was WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed the validity of the two marriages, whereas in the instant case, September 24, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals is the main issue is the annulment of title to property. Thus, hereby SET ASIDE. the CA affirmed the TC’s dismissal of the case. Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the trial court, Hence, the present petition. Branch 124 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, for it to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties and render a decision on the above-enumerated issues defined during the pre-trial. No costs. SO ORDERED.