HEIRS OF YAPTINCHAY v DEL ROSARIO o The trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss, holding that petitioners have
March 2, 1999 | Purisima, J. | Topic not shown any proof that they are the legal heirs of the Yaptinchays.
Digester: Angat, Christine Joy F.
SUMMARY: Petitioners, alleging that they are the heirs of the late Guido and Isabel
Yaptinchay, filed an action for declaration of nullity of TCTs and reconveyance against
Golden Bay Realty and Development Corporation. Upon learning that the lots were
already sold by Golden Bay, they moved to amend the complaint in order to implead
additional defendants. Private respondents argue that the action must be dismissed for
failure to state a cause of action since petitioners failed to present any proof that they
are indeed heirs of the Yaptinchays. The trial court dismissed the action, and the SC
affirmed. The SC held that the petitioners failed to adduce evidence to support their
allegation that they are the heirs of the Yaptinchays, thus, in order to proceed, they
should first be declared as heirs through a special proceeding. Declaration of heirship
cannot be made in a civil action because it entails the establishment of a status of a
right, which is the exclusive competence of a court in special proceedings.
DOCTRINE: The declaration of heirship must be made in an administration
proceeding, and not in an independent civil action. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues another for
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while
a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made
only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the
establishment of a status or right.
FACTS:
 Petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the late Guido and Isabel
Yaptinchay, the owners-claimants of a parcel of land situated in Bancal, Carmona,
Cavite.
o They executed an Extaa-Judicial Settlement of the estate of the two deceased.
 Petitioners later on discovered that a portion of the said property were titled in the
name of Golden Boy Realty and Development Corporation by virtue of a Transfer
Certificate of Title.
 Petitioners then moved to annul the said TCTs and all of its derivatives, and as an
alternative, reconveyance of the property with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction and damages.
o When it was discovered that Golden Bay has already sold portions of the land,
petitioners filed with the RTC an Amended Complaint to implead additional
defendants, but the RTC denied the said motion.
o An MR was filed, which was granted by the RTC, hence the petitioners were
able to file an amended complaint.
 On the other hand, the private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, on the
grounds of failure to state a cause of action [i.e. petitioners did not establish that
they were the legal heirs, hence not the real parties in interest], and estoppel by
laches.
 Their MR being denied, thus this petition for certiorari by the petitioners.
o Petitioners argue that the court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling
that the issue of heirship should first be determined before the trial of the cse
could proceed. The court should have proceeded with the trial and
simultaneously resolved the issue of heirship in the same case.
RULING: Petition denied.
Whether petition for certiorari is the proper remedy – NO
 Petitioners should have resorted to an appeal, not a certiorari. An order of
dismissal, be it right or wrong, is a final order, which is subject to appeal and not a
proper subject of certiorari. Where appeal is available as a remedy, certiorari will
not lie.
[TOPIC] Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing the case for failure of the petitioners to establish that they are the
legal heirs – NO.
Whether the issue of heirship could be resolved simultaneously in the action for
annulment and/or reconveyance –NO.
 Except for the petitioners’ allegations that they are the true legal heirs of the
Yaptinchays, there is no any semblance of proof that they are indeed the legal heirs.
Since they are not the legal heirs, the action is brought not by real parties in
interest. The action does not stat a cause of action and must therefore be dismissed.
 The argument that the heirship may be established during the course of the
proceedings of the civil action is misplaced. The determination of who are the
legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in the proper special
proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of
property. The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil
action because such declaration can only be made in a special proceeding.
 Under Sec. 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Court—
o a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong;
o A special proceeding, on the other hand, is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
 Thus, the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special
proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the
establishment of a status or right.