G.R. No. 155555.
August 16, 2005
ISABEL P. PORTUGAL and JOSE DOUGLAS PORTUGAL
JR., Petitioners, vs.
LEONILA PORTUGAL-BELTRAN, Respondent
Facts:
Jose Portugal (Portugal, Sr.) contracted two marriages.
The first marriage is with Paz Lazo in 1942 whom he had a
daughter named Leonila Perpetua Aleli Portugal (April 1950),
the herein respondent, and the second marriage is with Isabel
de la Puerta in 1948, who gave birth to a boy named Jose
Douglas Portugal, Jr. (Sept. 1949), the petitioners herein.
By virtue of a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Waiver of
Rights executed by Portugal Sr. and his 4 siblings, over the
estate of their father, a parcel of land n Caloocan was issued
a TCT in the name of “Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C.
Lazo”.
Paz died in 1984, while Portugal Sr. died intestate in 1985.
In 1988, Leonila executed an “Affidavit of Adjudication by
Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person”, adjudicating to
herself the Caloocan parcel of land, and was subsequently
registered (1988) in her name “Leonila Portugal Beltran,
married to Merardo M. Beltran, Jr.”
In 1996, Isabel and Portugal, Jr. (petitioners) filed a complaint
against Leonila for cancellation of Affidavit of Adjudication and
TCT issued in her name, alleging that Leonila is not related
whatsoever to the deceased Portugal, Sr., hence, not entitled
to inherit the Caloocan parcel of land, and accordingly prayed
that said TCT be cancelled and a new one be issued in their
(petitioner’s) name.
A Pre-Trial Order was issued, citing the following issues to be
resolved, to wit:
a. Which of the two (2) marriages contracted by the
deceased Jose Q. Portugal Sr., is valid?
b. Which of the plaintiff . . . Jose Portugal Jr. and defendant
Leonila P. Beltran is the legal heir of the deceased Jose
Q. Portugal Sr.?
c. Whether or not TCT No. 159813 was issued in due course
and can still be contested by plaintiffs.
d. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their claims under
the complaint. (Underscoring supplied)
After trial, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of cause
of action and lack of jurisdiction without resolving the issues
as stated in the pre-trial order, on the ground that petitioner’s
status and right as putative heirs had not been established
before a probate court.
Citing the case of Heirs of Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay, the
Supreme Court in this case ruled that the establishment of a
status, a right, or a particular fact is remedied through a
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
herein.
On appeal to CA, the petitioners cite the case of Carino vs.
Carino. In this case, the SC ratiocinates that the court may
pass upon the validity of marriage even after the death of the
parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly instituted to
question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential
to the determination of the case.
However, the CA found Carino to be inapplicable. The
appellate court held that in Carino case, the main issue was
the validity of the two marriages, whereas in the instant case,
the main issue is the annulment of title to property. Thus,
the CA affirmed the TC’s dismissal of the case.
Hence, the present petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners have to institute a
special proceeding to determine their status as
heirs before they can pursue the case for annulment
of respondent’s Affidavit of Adjudication and of the
TCT issued in her name.
Ruling: NO.
In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or
wrongly that she was the sole heir to Portugal’s estate,
executed on February 15, 1988 the questioned Affidavit
of Adjudication under the second sentence of Rule 74,
Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule 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. A probate or intestate court, no doubt, has
jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of a deceased.
It appearing, however, that in the present case the
only property of the intestate estate of Portugal is
the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it, under
the circumstances of the case, 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. And it is
superfluous in light of the fact that the parties to the
civil case – subject of the present case, could and
had already in fact presented evidence before the
trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case
upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.
In fine, under the circumstances of the present case,
there being no compelling reason to still subject
Portugal’s 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, which bear repeating, to wit:
1. Which of the two (2) marriages contracted by the
deceased Jose Q. Portugal, is valid;
2. Which of the plaintiff, Jose Portugal Jr. and
defendant Leonila P. Beltran is the legal heir of the
deceased Jose Q. Portugal (Sr.);
3. Whether or not TCT No. 159813 was issued in due
course and can still be contested by plaintiffs;
4. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their claim
under the complaint.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed
September 24, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby SET ASIDE.
Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the trial court,
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.