Spec Pro Cases- Batch 3 - Copy

8/19/2019 Spec Pro Cases- Batch 3 - Copy

1/275

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 175910 July 30, 2009

ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA, Petitioner,vs.

E !"A. "E TE, #$%#$&$'($) *y +$# A((o#'$y -' /(, AUSTINOCASTA E"A, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

"EL CASTILLO, J.:

"efore us is a petition for revie# on certiorari $ #ith pra%er for preli&inar% in'unctionassailin( the Order ) dated March )), )**+ of the Re(ional Trial !ourt RT!-, "ranch $ ,Di(os !it%, Davao del Sur, in !ivil !ase No. /011.

The facts, as culled fro& the records, follo#.

On 2ebruar% $0, $ 3, a Decision #as rendered in N4R! !ase No. R5"6$$6*76**+*16/ entitled, Patricio Sereno v. Teodoro Gasing/Truck Operator , findin( Sereno to have

been ille(all% dis&issed and orderin( 8asin( to pa% hi& his &onetar% clai&s in thea&ount of P

0/,+*+.07. 5fter the 9rit of :ecution #as returned unsatisfied, 4abor 5rbiter Ne#ton R. Sancho issued an 5lias 9rit of :ecution / on ;une $*, $ +, directin(2ul(encio R. 4avare


2/275

respondent has cause of action@ /- the alle(ations in the co&plaint do not containsufficient cause of action as a(ainst hi&@ and 0- the co&plaint is not acco&panied b%an 5ffidavit of Merit and "ond that #ould entitle the respondent to the deliver% of thetuc= pendente lite.

The N4R! also filed a Motion to Dis&iss$* on the (rounds of lac= of 'urisdiction and lac=of cause of action.

Mean#hile, 4avare< filed an 5ns#er #ith !o&pulsor% !ounterclai& and Third6Part%!o&plaint. $$ "% #a% of special and affir&ative defenses, he asserted that the RT! doesnot have 'urisdiction over the sub'ect &atter and that the co&plaint does not state acause of action.

On ;anuar% )$, )***, the RT! issued an Order $) den%in( petitionerCs Motion to Dis&issfor lac= of &erit.

In his 5ns#er, $/ petitioner denied the &aterial alle(ations in the co&plaint. Specificall%,he cited as affir&ative defenses that? respondent had no le(al personalit% to sue, as shehad no interest over the &otor vehicle@ that there #as no sho#in( that the heirs havefiled an intestate estate proceedin(s of the estate of Pedro Te, or that respondent #asdul% authorieda, had lon( testified

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt21


3/275

on the co&plaint on March $/, $ 1 for and on her behalf and, accordin(l%, sub&itteddocu&entar% e:hibits in support of the co&plaint.

On March )), )**+, the RT! issued the assailed Order )) den%in( petitionerCs aforesaid&otion.

Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration #ith Motion for Inhibition,)/ in #hich heclai&ed that the 'ud(e #ho issued the Order #as biased and partial. He #ent on to statethat the 'ud(eCs husband #as the defendant in a petition for 'udicial reco(nition of #hichhe #as the counsel, doc=eted as !ivil !ase No. !6EEI6$**, before the RT!, "ranch )$,"ansalan, Davao del Sur. Thus, propriet% dictates that the 'ud(e should inhibit herselffro& the case.

5ctin( on the &otion for inhibition, ;ud(e !ar&elita Sarno6Davin (ranted thesa&e )0 and ordered that the case be re6raffled to "ranch $1. ventuall%, the said RT!issued an Order )3 on October $+, )**+ den%in( petitionerCs &otion for reconsiderationfor lac= of &erit.

Hence, petitioner directl% sou(ht recourse fro& the !ourt via the present petitioninvolvin( pure Buestions of la#, #hich he clai&ed #ere resolved b% the RT! contrar% tola#, rules and e:istin( 'urisprudence. )+

There is a A u$&(-o' o l A #hen the doubt or difference arises as to #hat the la# ison certain state of facts, and #hich does not call for an e:a&ination of the probativevalue of the evidence presented b% the parties6liti(ants. On the other hand, there is aA u$&(-o' o /(A #hen the doubt or controvers% arises as to the truth or falsit% of thealle(ed facts. Si&pl% put, #hen there is no dispute as to fact, the Buestion of #hether ornot the conclusion dra#n therefro& is correct, is a Buestion of la#.)7

Veril%, the issues raised b% herein petitioner are ABuestions of la#,A as their resolutionrest solel% on #hat the la# provides (iven the set of circu&stances availin(. The firstissue involves the 'urisdiction of the court over the person of one of the defendants, #ho#as not served #ith su&&ons on account of his death. The second issue, on the otherhand, pertains to the le(al effect of death of the plaintiff durin( the pendenc% of the

case. 5t first brush, it &a% appear that since pure Buestions of la# #ere raised, petitionerCsresort to this !ourt #as 'ustified and the resolution of the afore&entioned issues #illnecessaril% follo#. Ho#ever, a perusal of the petition reBuires that certain proceduralissues &ust initiall% be resolved before 9e delve into the &erits of the case.

Notabl%, the petition #as filed directl% fro& the RT! #hich issued the Order in thee:ercise of its ori(inal 'urisdiction. The Buestion before Fs then is? #hether or notpetitioner correctl% availed of the &ode of appeal under Rule 03 of the Rules of !ourt.

Si(nificantl%, the rule on appeals is outlined belo#, to #it?)1

$- In all/ &$& )$/-)$) *y (+$ RTC -' (+$ $4$#/-&$ o -(& o#- -' l 6u#-&)-/(-o', appeal &a% be &ade to the !ourt of 5ppeals b% &ere notice ofappeal #here the appellant raises Buestions of fact or &i:ed Buestions of factand la#@

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt28


4/275

)- In all/ &$& )$/-)$) *y (+$ RTC -' (+$ $4$#/-&$ o -(& o#- -' l 6u#-&)-/(-o' +$#$ (+$ %%$ll '( # -&$& o'ly u$&(-o'& o l, the appeal&ust be ta=en to the Supre&e !ourt on a petition for revie# on certiorari underRule 03.

/- 5ll appeals fro& 'ud(&ents rendered b% the RT! in the e:ercise of itsappellate 'urisdiction, re(ardless of #hether the appellant raises Buestions offact, Buestions of la#, or &i:ed Buestions of fact and la#, shall be brou(ht to the!ourt of 5ppeals b% filin( a petition for revie# under Rule 0).

5ccordin(l%, an appeal &a% be ta=en fro& the RT! #hich e:ercised its ori(inal 'urisdiction, before the !ourt of 5ppeals or directl% before this !ourt, provided that thesub'ect of the sa&e is a 6u) $'( o# -' l o#)$# that co&pletel% disposes of the case,or of a particular &atter therein #hen declared b% the Rules to be appealable. ) The first&ode of appeal, to be filed before the !ourt of 5ppeals, pertains to a #rit of error underSection ) a-, Rule 0$ of the Rules of !ourt, if Buestions of fact or Buestions of fact andla# are raised or involved. On the other hand, the second &ode is b% #a% of an appealb% certiorari before the Supre&e !ourt under Section ) c-, Rule 0$, in relation to Rule03, #here onl% Buestions of la# are raised or involved./*

5n order or 'ud(&ent of the RT! is dee&ed -' l #hen it finall% disposes of a pendin(action, so that nothin( &ore can be done #ith it in the trial court. In other #ords, theorder or 'ud(&ent ends the liti(ation in the lo#er court. /$ On the other hand, an order#hich does not dispose of the case co&pletel% and indicates that other thin(s re&ain to

be done b% the court as re(ards the &erits, is -'($#lo/u(o#y . Interlocutory refers toso&ethin( bet#een the co&&ence&ent and the end of the suit #hich decides so&epoint or &atter, but is not a final decision on the #hole controvers%./)

The sub'ect of the present petition is an Order of the RT!, #hich denied petitionerCsO&nibus Motion to Dis&iss, for lac= of &erit.

9e have said ti&e and a(ain that an order den%in( a &otion to dis&iss isinterlocutor%.// Fnder Section $ c-, Rule 0$ of the Rules of !ourt, an interlocutor% orderis not appealable. 5s a re&ed% for the denial, a part% has to file an ans#er and

interpose as a defense the ob'ections raised in the &otion, and then to proceed to trial@or, a part% &a% i&&ediatel% avail of the re&ed% available to the a((rieved part% b% filin(an appropriate special civil action for certiorari under Rule +3 of the Revised Rules of!ourt. 4et it be stressed thou(h that a petition for certiorari is appropriate onl% #hen anorder has been issued #ithout or in e:cess of 'urisdiction, or #ith (rave abuse ofdiscretion a&ountin( to lac= or e:cess of 'urisdiction.

"ased on the fore(oin(, the Order of the RT! den%in( petitionerCs O&nibus Motion toDis&iss is not appealable even on pure Buestions of la#. It is #orth &entionin( that theproper procedure in this case, as enunciated b% this !ourt, is to cite such interlocutor%order as an error in the appeal of the case 66 in the event that the RT! rules in favor ofrespondent 66 and not to appeal such interlocutor% order. On the other hand, if thepetition is to be treated as a petition for revie# under Rule 03, it #ould li=e#ise failbecause the proper sub'ect #ould onl% be 'ud(&ents or final orders that co&pletel%dispose of the case. /0

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt34


5/275

Not bein( a proper sub'ect of an appeal, the Order of the RT! is consideredinterlocutor%. Petitioner should have proceeded #ith the trial of the case and, should theRT! eventuall% render an unfavorable verdict, petitioner should assail the said Order aspart of an appeal that &a% be ta=en fro& the final 'ud(&ent to be rendered in this case.Such rule is founded on considerations of orderl% procedure, to forestall uselessappeals and avoid

undue inconvenience to the appealin( part% b% havin( to assail orders as the% arepro&ul(ated b% the court, #hen all such orders &a% be contested in a sin(le appeal.

In one case, /3 the !ourt adverted to the ha


6/275

The SheriffCs Return of Service/ dated Ma% $ , $ 7 states that Sereno could not beserved #ith cop% of the su&&ons, to(ether #ith a cop% of the co&plaint, because he#as alread% dead.

In vie# of SerenoCs death, petitioner as=s that the co&plaint should be dis&issed, notonl% a(ainst Sereno, but as to all the defendants, considerin( that the RT! did notacBuire 'urisdiction over the person of Sereno.1avvph!1

;urisdiction over a part% is acBuired b% service of su&&ons b% the sheriff, his deput% orother proper court officer, either personall% b% handin( a cop% thereof to the defendantor b% substituted service.0* On the other

hand, su&&ons is a #rit b% #hich the defendant is notified of the action brou(ht a(ainsthi&. Service of such #rit is the &eans b% #hich the court &a% acBuire 'urisdiction overhis person.0$

Records sho# that petitioner had filed a Motion to Dis&iss on the (rounds of lac= ofle(al personalit% of respondent@ the alle(ations in the co&plaint did not sufficientl% statethat respondent has a cause of action or a cause of action a(ainst the defendants@ and,the co&plaint #as not acco&panied b% an affidavit of &erit and bond. The RT! deniedthe &otion and held therein that, on the basis of the alle(ations of fact in the co&plaint,it can render a valid 'ud(&ent. Petitioner, subseBuentl%, filed his ans#er b% den%in( allthe &aterial alle(ations of the co&plaint. 5nd b% #a% of special and affir&ativedefenses, he reiterated that respondent had no le(al personalit% to sue as she had no

real interest over the propert% and that #hile the truc= #as still re(istered in Pedro TeCsna&e, the sa&e #as alread% sold to 8asin(.

Si(nificantl%, a &otion to dis&iss &a% be filed #ithin the ti&e for but before the filin( ofan ans#er to the co&plaint or pleadin( assertin( a clai&. 0) 5&on( the (rounds&entioned is the courtCs lac= of 'urisdiction over the person of the defendin( part%.

5s a rule, all defenses and ob'ections not pleaded, either in a &otion to dis&iss or in anans#er, are dee&ed #aived. 0/ The e:ceptions to this rule are? $- #hen the court has no

'urisdiction over the sub'ect &atter, )- #hen there is another action pendin( bet#een

the parties for the sa&e cause, or /- #hen the action is barred b% prior 'ud(&ent or b%statute of li&itations, in #hich cases, the court &a% dis&iss the clai&.

In the case before Fs, petitioner raises the issue of lac= of 'urisdiction over the personof Sereno, not in his Motion to Dis&iss or in his 5ns#er but onl% in his O&nibus Motionto Dis&iss. Havin( failed to invo=e this (round at the proper ti&e, that is, in a &otion todis&iss, petitioner cannot raise it no# for the first ti&e on appeal.

In fine, 9e cannot countenance petitionerCs ar(u&ent that the co&plaint a(ainst theother defendants should have been dis&issed, considerin( that the RT! never acBuired

'urisdiction over the person of Sereno. The courtCs failure to acBuire 'urisdiction overoneCs person is a defense #hich is personal to the person clai&in( it. Obviousl%, it isno# i&possible for Sereno to invo=e the sa&e in vie# of his death. Neither canpetitioner invo=e such (round, on behalf of Sereno, so as to reap the benefit of havin(the case dis&issed a(ainst all of the defendants. 2ailure to serve su&&ons on SerenoCsperson #ill not be a cause for the dis&issal of the co&plaint a(ainst the otherdefendants, considerin( that the% have been served #ith copies of the su&&ons and

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt43


7/275

co&plaints and have lon( sub&itted their respective responsive pleadin(s. In fact, theother defendants in the co&plaint #ere (iven the chance to raise all possible defensesand ob'ections personal to the& in their respective &otions to dis&iss and theirsubseBuent ans#ers.

9e a(ree #ith the RT! in its Order #hen it resolved the issue in this #ise?

5s correctl% pointed b% defendants, the Honorable !ourt has not acBuired 'urisdictionover the person of Patricio Sereno since there #as indeed no valid service of su&&onsinsofar as Patricio Sereno is concerned. Patricio Sereno died before the su&&ons,to(ether #ith a cop% of the co&plaint and its anne:es, could be served upon hi&.

Ho#ever, the failure to effect service of su&&ons unto Patricio Sereno, one of thedefendants herein does not render the action DISMISSI"4 , considerin( that the three

/- other defendants, na&el%, 5tt%. Ro(elio . Sarsaba, 2ul(encio 4avares and theN4R!, #ere validl% served #ith su&&ons and the case #ith respect to the ans#erin(defendants &a% still proceed independentl%. "e it recalled that the three /- ans#erin(defendants have previousl% filed a Motion to Dis&iss the !o&plaint #hich #as deniedb% the !ourt.

Hence, onl% the case a(ainst Patricio Sereno #ill be DISMISS D and the sa&e &a% befiled as a clai& a(ainst the estate of Patricio Sereno, but the case #ith respect to thethree /- other accused #ill proceed.

5nent the second issue, petitioner &oves that respondentCs attorne%6in6fact, 2austino!asta>eda, be dischar(ed as he has no &ore le(al personalit% to sue on behalf of 2eVda. de Te, #ho passed a#a% on 5pril $), )**3, durin( the pendenc% of the case beforethe RT!.

9hen a part% to a pendin( action dies and the clai& is not e:tin(uished, the Rules of!ourt reBuire a substitution of the deceased. 00 Section $, Rule 17 of the Rules of !ourtenu&erates the actions that survived and &a% be filed a(ainst the decedentCsrepresentatives as follo#s? $- actions to recover real or personal propert% or an interestthereon, )- actions to enforce liens thereon, and /- actions to recover da&a(es for an

in'ur% to a person or a propert%. In such cases, a counsel is obli(ed to infor& the courtof the death of his client and (ive the na&e and address of the latterCs le(alrepresentative. 03

The rule on substitution of parties is (overned b% Section $+,0+ Rule / of the $ 7 Rulesof !ivil Procedure, as a&ended.

Strictl% spea=in(, the rule on substitution b% heirs is not a &atter of 'urisdiction, but areBuire&ent of due process. The rule on substitution #as crafted to protect ever% part%Csri(ht to due process. It #as desi(ned to ensure that the deceased part% #ould continue

to be properl% represented in the suit throu(h his heirs or the dul% appointed le(alrepresentative of his estate. Moreover, non6co&pliance #ith the Rules results in thedenial of the ri(ht to due process for the heirs #ho, thou(h not dul% notified of theproceedin(s, #ould be substantiall% affected b% the decision rendered therein. Thus, it isonl% #hen there is a denial of due process, as #hen the deceased is not represented b%an% le(al representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial proceedin(s and theresultin( 'ud(&ent therein. 07

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt47


8/275

In the case before Fs, it appears that respondentCs counsel did not &a=e an%&anifestation before the RT! as to her death. In fact, he had activel% participated in theproceedin(s. Neither had he sho#n an% proof that he had been retained b%respondentCs le(al representative or an% one #ho succeeded her.

Ho#ever, such failure of counsel #ould not lead Fs to invalidate the proceedin(s thathave lon( ta=en place before the RT!. The !ourt has repeatedl% declared that failure of the counsel to co&pl% #ith his dut% to infor& the court of the death of his client, suchthat no substitution is effected, #ill not invalidate the proceedin(s and the 'ud(&entrendered thereon if the action survives the death of such part%. The trial courtCs

'urisdiction over the case subsists despite the death of the part%.01

The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the ri(ht to due process of ever% part%to the liti(ation #ho &a% be affected b% the intervenin( death. The deceased liti(antsare the&selves protected as the% continue to be properl% represented in the suitthrou(h the dul% appointed le(al representative of their estate.0

5nent the clai& of petitioner that the special po#er of attorne%3* dated March 0, $ 7e:ecuted b% respondent in favor of 2austino has beco&e functus officio and that thea(enc% constituted bet#een the& has been e:tin(uished upon the death of respondent,corollaril%, he had no &ore personalit% to appear and prosecute the case on her behalf.

5(enc% is e:tin(uished b% the death of the principal.3$ The onl% e:ception #here thea(enc% shall re&ain in full force and effect even after the death of the principal is #hen

if it has been constituted in the co&&on interest of the latter and of the a(ent, or in theinterest of a third person #ho has accepted the stipulation in his favor. 3)

5 perusal of the special po#er of attorne% leads us to conclude that it #as constitutedfor the benefit solel% of the principal or for respondent 2e Vda. de Te. No#here can #einfer fro& the stipulations therein that it #as created for the co&&on interest ofrespondent and her attorne%6in6fact. Neither #as there an% &ention that it #as to benefita third person #ho has accepted the stipulation in his favor.

On this (round, 9e a(ree #ith petitioner. Ho#ever, 9e do not believe that such (round

#ould cause the dis&issal of the co&plaint. 2or as 9e have said, !ivil !ase No. /011,#hich is an action for the recover% of a personal propert%, a &otor vehicle, is an actionthat survives pursuant to Section $, Rule 17 of the Rules of !ourt. 5s such, it is note:tin(uished b% the death of a part%.

In Gonzalez v. Philippine use ent and Ga ing "orporation ,3/ 9e have laid do#nthe criteria for deter&inin( #hether an action survives the death of a plaintiff orpetitioner, to #it?

: : : The Buestion as to #hether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the

action and the da&a(e sued for. If the causes of action #hich survive the #ron(co&plained ofJ affects pri&aril% and principall% propert% and propert% ri(hts, the in'uriesto the person bein( &erel% incidental, #hile in the causes of action #hich do not survivethe in'ur% co&plained of is to the person the propert% and ri(hts of propert% affectedbein( incidental. : : :

Thus, the RT! aptl% resolved the second issue #ith the follo#in( ratiocination?

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt53


9/275

9hile it &a% be true as alle(ed b% defendants that #ith the death of Plaintiff, 2e Vda. deTe, the Special Po#er of 5ttorne% she e:ecuted e&po#erin( the 5ttorne%6in6fact,2austino !asta>eda to sue in her behalf has been rendered functus officio, ho#ever,this !ourt believes that the 5ttorne%6in6fact had not lost his personalit% to prosecute thiscase.

It bears stressin( that #hen this case #as initiatedKfiled b% the 5ttorne%6in6fact, theplaintiff #as still ver% &uch alive.

Records reveal that the 5ttorne%6in6fact has testified lon( before in behalf of the saidplaintiff and &ore particularl% durin( the state #hen the plaintiff #as vehe&entl%opposin( the dis&issal of the co&plainant. SubseBuentl% thereto, he even offereddocu&entar% evidence in support of the co&plaint, and this court ad&itted the sa&e.9hen this case #as initiated, 'urisdiction #as vested upon this !ourt to tr% and hear thesa&e to the end. 9ell6settled is the rule to the point of bein( ele&entar% that once

'urisdiction is acBuired b% this !ourt, it attaches until the case is decided.

Thus, the proper re&ed% here is the Substitution of Heirs and not the dis&issal of thiscase #hich #ould #or= in'ustice to the plaintiff.

SEC. 18, RULE 3 provides for the substitution of the plaintiff #ho dies pendin( hearin(of the case b% hisKher le(al heirs. 5s to #hether or not the heirs #ill still continue toen(a(e the services of the 5ttorne%6in6fact is another &atter, #hich lies #ithin the solediscretion of the heirs.

In fine, 9e hold that the petition should be denied as the RT! Order is interlocutor%@hence, not a proper sub'ect of an appeal before the !ourt. In the sa&e breath, 9e alsohold that, if the petition is to be treated as a petition forcertiorari as a rela:ation of the

'udicial hierarch% of courts, the sa&e is also dis&issible for bein( substantiall%insufficient to #arrant the !ourt the nullification of the Order of the RT!.

4et this be an occasion for Fs to reiterate that the rules are there to aid liti(ants inprosecutin( or defendin( their cases before the courts. Ho#ever, these ver% rulesshould not be abused so as to advance oneCs personal purposes, to the detri&ent of

orderl% ad&inistration of 'ustice. 9e can sur&ise fro& the present case hereinpetitionerCs &anipulation in order to circu&vent the rule on &odes of appeal and thehierarch% of courts so that the issues presented herein could be settled #ithout (oin(throu(h the established procedures. In Ver(ara, Sr. v. Suelto, 30 9e stressed that thisshould be the constant polic% that &ust be observed strictl% b% the courts and la#%ers,thus?

: : :. The Supre&e !ourt is a court of last resort, and &ust so re&ain if it is tosatisfactoril% perfor& the functions assi(ned to it b% the funda&ental charter andi&&e&orial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened #ith the tas= of dealin( #ith

causes in the first instance. Its ori(inal 'urisdiction to issue the so6called e:traordinar%#rits should be e:ercised onl% #here absolutel% necessar% or #here serious andi&portant reasons e:ist therefor. Hence, that 'urisdiction should (enerall% be e:ercisedrelative to actions or proceedin(s before the !ourt of 5ppeals, or before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or a(encies #hose acts for so&e reason or another are notcontrollable b% the !ourt of 5ppeals. 9here the issuance of an e:traordinar% #rit is also

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt54


10/275

#ithin the co&petence of the !ourt of 5ppeals or a Re(ional Trial !ourt, it is in either ofthese courts that the specific action for the #rit s procure&ent &ust be presented. Thisis and should continue to be the polic% in this re(ard, a polic% that courts and la#%ers&ust strictl% observe.33

9H R 2OR , pre&ises considered, the Petition is D NI D. The Order dated March)), )**+ of the Re(ional Trial !ourt, "ranch $ , Di(os, Davao del Sur in !ivil !ase No./011, is hereb% 522IRM D. !osts a(ainst the petitioner.

SO ORD R D.

"IOS"A"O M. PERALTA 5ssociate ;ustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_175910_2009.html#fnt55


11/275


Manila

N "5N!

G.R. No. L 1 1: $*#u #y 2 , 1983

"EOGRACIAS BERNAR"O, $4$/u(o# o (+$ ($&( ($ $&( ($ o (+$ )$/$ &$)EUSEBIO CAPILI; ') (+$ -'&(-(u($) +$-#&, ' $ly< ARMAN"O CAPILI ')ARTURO BERNAR"O, ET AL., petitioners,vs.=ON. COURT O APPEALS ') T=E =EIRS O T=E LATE =ERMOGENA REYES,

' $ly< RANCISCO REYES, ET AL., ') JOSE ISI"ORO, ET AL., respondents.

#rosio Padilla $a% Offices for petitioners.&o erico '. 'lores for respondents.

BARRERA,J.:

This is a petition b%certiorari for the revie# of the decision of the !ourt of 5ppealsaffir&in( that of the !ourt of 2irst Instance of "ulacan holdin( that the probate court inSpecial Proceedin( $$*$ had 'urisdiction to deter&ine the validit% of the deed of

donation in Buestion and to pass upon the Buestion of title or o#nership of theproperties &entioned therein.

The facts are briefl% stated in the appealed decision of the !ourt of 5ppeals as follo#s?

usebio !apili and Her&o(ena Re%es #ere husband and #ife. The first died on;ul% )7, $ 31 and a testate proceedin( for the settle&ent of his estate #asinstituted in the !ourt of the 2ist Instance of "ulacan. His #ill #as ad&itted toprobate on October , $ 31, disposin( of his properties in favor of his #ido#@ hiscousins 5r&ando, Frsula, and "uenaventura, all surna&ed !apili@ and 5rturo,Deo(racias and duardo, all surna&ed "ernardo. Her&o(ena Re%es herselfdied on 5pril )0, $ 3 . Fpon petition of Deo(racias "ernardo, e:ecutor of theestate of the deceased usebio !apili, she #as substituted b% her collateralrelatives and intestate heirs, na&el%, Marcos, Vicente, 2rancisco and Do&in(a,all surna&ed Re%es@ and ;ose, !onstancia, Ra%&unda and lena, all surna&edIsidoro.

On ;une $), $ 3 , the e:ecutor filed a pro'ect of partition in the testateproceedin( in accordance #ith the ter&s of the #ill, ad'udicatin( the estate of

usebio !apili a&on( the testa&entar% heirs #ith the e:ception of Her&o(enaRe%es, #hose share #as alloted to her collateral relatives afore&entioned. On;une $+, $ 3 these relatives filed an opposition to the e:ecutorCs pro'ect ofpartition and sub&itted a counter6pro'ect of partition of their o#n, clai&in( $K) ofthe properties &entioned in the #ill of the deceased usebio !apili on the theor%that the% belon(ed not to the latter alone but to the con'u(al partnership of thespouses.


12/275

The probate court, in t#o orders dated ;une )0, $ 3 and 2ebruar% $*, $ +*,respectivel%, set the t#o pro'ects of partition for hearin(, at #hich evidence #aspresented b% the parties, follo#ed b% the sub&ission of &e&oranda discussin(certain le(al issues. In the &e&orandu& for the e:ecutor and the instituted heirsit #as contended? $- that the properties disposed of in the #ill of the deceased

usebio !apili belon(ed to hi& e:clusivel% and not to the con'u(al partnership,because Her&o(ena Re%es had donated to hi& her half share of suchpartnership@ )- that the collateral heirs of Her&o(ena Re%es had no la#fulstandin( or (rounds to Buestion the validit% of the donation@ and /- that evenassu&in( that the% could Buestion the validit% of the donation, the sa&e &ust beliti(ated not in the testate proceedin( but in a separate civil action.

9herefore, the parties respectfull% pra% that the fore(oin( stipulation of facts bead&itted and approved b% this Honorable !ourt, #ithout pre'udice to the parties

adducin( other evidence to prove their case not covered b% this stipulation offacts. 1(%ph)1.*+t

The oppositors and heirs of Her&o(ena Re%es, on their part, ar(ued that thedeed of donation itself #as deter&inative of the ori(inal con'u(al character to theproperties, aside fro& the le(al presu&ption laid do#n in 5rticle $+* of the !ivil!ode, and that since the donation #as null and void the deceased usebio !apilidid not beco&e o#ner of the share of his #ife and therefore could not validl%dispose of it in his #ill.

On Septe&ber $0, $ +*, the probate court, the Honorable M. Me'ia presidin(,issued an order declarin( the donation void #ithout &a=in( an% specific findin(as to its 'uridical nature, that is, #hether it #as inter vivos or &ortis causa, for thereason that, considered under the first cate(or%, it falls under 5rticle $// of the!ivil !ode, #hich prohibits donations bet#een spouses durin( the &arria(e@ andconsidered under the second cate(or%, it does not co&pl% #ith the for&alities ofa #ill as reBuired b% 5rticle 7)1 in relation to 5rticle 1*3 of the sa&e !ode, therebein( no attestation clause. In the sa&e order the court disapproved bothpro'ects of partition and directed the e:ecutor to file another,A dividin( thepropert% &entioned in the last #ill and testa&ent of the deceased usebio !apiliand the properties &entioned in the deed of donation, :hibit ", bet#een theinstituted heirs of the deceased usebio !apili and the le(al heirs of thedeceased Her&o(ena Re%es, upon the basis that the said properties #erecon'u(al properties of the deceased spouses.A On Septe&ber )7, $ +*, thee:ecutor filed a &otion for ne# trial, reiteratin( and e&phasi


13/275

The petitioners6appellants contend that the appellate court erred in not declarin( thatthe probate court, havin( li&ited and special 'urisdiction, had (enerall% no po#er toad'udicate title and erred in appl%in( the e:ception to the rule.

In a line of decisions, this !ourt consistentl% held that as a (eneral rule, Buestion as totitle to propert% cannot be passed upon on testate or intestate proceedin(s,A$ e:cept#here one of the parties pra%s &erel% for the inclusion or e:clusion fro& the inventor%of the propert%, in #hich case the probate court &a% pass provisionall% upon theBuestion #ithout pre'udice to its final deter&ination in a separate action.) Ho#ever, #ehave also held that #hen the parties interested are all heirs of the deceased, it isoptional to the& to sub&it to the probate court a Buestion as to title to propert%, and#hen so sub&itted, said probate court &a% definitel% pass 'ud(&ent thereon Pascual v.Pascual, 7/ Phil. 3+$@ Manalac v. Oca&po, et al., 7/ Phil. ++$-@ and that #ith theconsent of the parties, &atters affectin( propert% under 'udicial ad&inistration &a% be

ta=en co(ni


14/275

&atters and incidents necessar% to the co&plete settle&ent of such estate, so lon( asno interests of third parties are affected.0

In the case no# before us, the &atter in controvers% is the Buestion of o#nership ofcertain of the properties involved #hether the% belon( to the con'u(al partnership orto the husband e:clusivel%. This is a &atter properl% #ithin the 'urisdiction of the probatecourt #hich necessaril% has to liBuidate the con'u(al partnership in order to deter&inethe estate of the decedent #hich is to be distributed a&on( his heirs #ho are all partiesto the proceedin(s, includin(, of course, the #ido#, no# represented because of herdeath, b% her heirs #ho have been substituted upon petition of the e:ecutor hi&self and#ho have appeared voluntaril%. There are no third parties #hose ri(hts &a% be affected.It is true that the heirs of the deceased #ido# are not heirs of the testator6husband, butthe #ido# is, in addition to her o#n ri(ht to the con'u(al propert%. 5nd it is this ri(ht thatis bein( sou(ht to be enforced b% her substitutes. Therefore, the clai& that is bein(

asserted is one belon(in( to an heir to the testator and, conseBuentl%, it co&plies #iththe reBuire&ent of the e:ception that the parties interested the petitioners and the#ido#, represented b% dents- are all heirs clai&in( title under the testator.

Petitioners contend additionall% that the% have never sub&itted the&selves to the 'urisdiction of the probate court, for the purpose of the deter&ination of the Buestion ofo#nership of the disputed properties. This is not borne b% the ad&itted facts. On thecontrar%, it is undisputed that the% #ere the ones #ho presented the pro'ect of partitionclai&in( the Buestioned properties as part of the testatorCs asset. The respondents, asrepresentatives or substitutes of the deceased #ido# opposed the pro'ect of partition

and sub&itted another. 5s the !ourt of 5ppeals said, AIn doin( so all of the& &ust bedee&ed to have sub&itted the issue for resolution in the sa&e proceedin(. !ertainl%,the petitioners can not be heard to insist, as the% do, on the approval of their pro'ect ofpartition and, thus, have the court ta=e it for (ranted that their theor% as to the characterof the properties is correct, entirel% #ithout re(ard to the opposition of the respondentsA.In other #ords, b% presentin( their pro'ect of partition includin( therein the disputedlands upon the clai& that the% #ere donated b% the #ife to her husband-, petitionersthe&selves put in issue the Buestion of o#nership of the properties #hich is #ell#ithin the co&petence of the probate court and 'ust because of an oppositionthereto, the% can not thereafter #ithdra# either their appearance or the issue fro& the

'urisdiction of the court. !ertainl%, there is here a #aiver #here the parties #ho raise theob'ection are the ones #ho set the court in &otion. 3 The% can not be per&itted toco&plain if the court, after due hearin(, ad'ud(es Buestion a(ainst the&. +

2inall%, petitioners6appellants clai& that appellees are estopped to raise the Buestion ofo#nership of the properties involved because the #ido# herself, durin( her lifeti&e, notonl% did not ob'ect to the inclusion of these properties in the inventor% of the assets ofher deceased husband, but also si(ned an e:tra6'udicial partition of those inventoriedproperties. "ut the ver% authorities cited b% appellants reBuire that to constituteestoppel, the actor &ust have =no#led(e of the facts and be appraised of his ri(hts atthe ti&e he perfor&s the act constitutin( estoppel, because silence #ithout =no#led(e#or=s no estoppel. 7 In the present case, the deceased #ido# acted as she did becauseof the deed of donation she e:ecuted in favor of her husband not =no#in( that suchdeed #as ille(al, if inter6vivos, and ineffectual if &ortis6causa, as it has not beene:ecuted #ith the reBuired for&alities si&ilar to a #ill.


15/275

9H R 2OR , the decision of the !ourt of 5ppeals bein( in accordance #ith la#, thesa&e is hereb% affir&ed #ith costs a(ainst appellants. So ordered.

engzon ".0. Padilla autista ngelo $a#rador "oncepcion &eyes 0. .$. Paredesizon and &egala 00. concur.

2akalintal 0. took no part.


Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 189:5: "$/$ *$# 27, 2007

T=E =EIRS O MARCELINO "ORONIO, NAMELY< REGINA AN" LORA, BOT=SURNAME" "ORONIO,Petitioners,vs.=EIRS O ORTUNATO "ORONIO, NAMELY< TRINI"A" ROSALINA "ORONIOBALMES, MO"ING "ORONIO, LORENTINA "ORONIO, AN" ANICETAALCANTARA MANALO, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

REYES, R.T., J.:

2or Our revie# on certiorari is the Decision$ of the !ourt of 5ppeals !5- reversin(that) of the Re(ional Trial !ourt RT!-, "ranch 03, 5nonas, Frdaneta !it%, Pan(asinan,in an action for reconve%ance and da&a(es. The !5 declared respondents as ri(htfulo#ners of one6half of the sub'ect propert% and directed petitioners to e:ecute are(isterable docu&ent conve%in( the sa&e to respondents.

T+$ /(&

Spouses Si&eon Doronio and !ornelia 8ante, no# both deceased, #ere the re(isteredo#ners of a parcel of land located at "aran(a% !abalitaan, 5sin(an, Pan(asinancovered b% Ori(inal !ertificate of Title O!T- No. /3)./ The courts belo# described it asfollo#s?

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt3


16/275

Fn terreno 4ote $*$1-, situada en el &unicipio de 5sin(an, 4inda por el N @ conpropriedad de 8abriel "ernardino@ con el S con propriedad de acarias Na'orda %

5le'andro Na'orda@ por el SO con propriedad de 8e&iniano Mendo


17/275

issuance of a ne# Transfer !ertificate of Title T!T- No. 0001$ in the na&es ofMarcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico.$0 Thus, the entire propert% #as titled in thena&es of petitioners predecessors.

On 5pril )1, $ 0, the heirs of 2ortunato Doronio filed a pleadin( before the RT! in thefor& of a petition in the sa&e Petition !ase No. F6 )*. The petition #as for thereconsideration of the decision of the RT! that ordered the re(istration of the sub'ectdeed of donation. It #as pra%ed in the petition that an order be issued declarin( null andvoid the re(istration of the private deed of donation and that T!T No. 0001$ becancelled. Ho#ever, the petition #as dis&issed on Ma% $/, $ 0 on the (round that thedecision in Petition !ase No. F6 )* had alread% beco&e final as it #as not appealed.

Deter&ined to re&ain in their possessed propert%, respondent heirs of 2ortunatoDoronio as plaintiffs- filed an action for reconve%ance and da&a(es #ith pra%er forpreli&inar% in'unction$3 a(ainst petitioner heirs of Marcelino Doronio as defendants-before the RT!, "ranch 03, 5nonas, Frdaneta !it%, Pan(asinan. Respondentscontended, a&on( others, that the sub'ect land is different fro& #hat #as donated asthe descriptions of the propert% under O!T No. /3) and under the private deed ofdonation #ere different. The% posited that spouses Si&eon Doronio and !ornelia 8anteintended to donate onl% one6half of the propert%.

Durin( the pre6trial conference, the parties stipulated, a&on( others, that the propert%#as ori(inall% covered b% O!T No. /3) #hich #as cancelled b% T!T No. 0001$. The%also a(reed that the issues are? $- #hether or not there #as a variation in the

description of the propert% sub'ect of the private deed of donation and O!T No. /3)@ )-#hether or not respondents had acBuired one6half of the propert% covered b% O!T No./3) b% acBuisitive prescription@ /- #hether or not the transfer of the #hole propert%covered b% O!T No. /3) on the basis of the re(istration of the private deed of donationnot#ithstandin( the discrepanc% in the description is valid@ 0- #hether or notrespondents are entitled to da&a(es@ and 3- #hether or not T!T No. 0001$ is valid.$+

RT! Decision

5fter due proceedin(s, the RT! ruled in favor of petitioner heirs of Marcelino Doronio

defendants-. It concluded that the parties ad&itted the identit% of the land #hich the% alloccup%@$7 that a title once re(istered under the torrens s%ste& cannot be defeated b%adverse, open and notorious possession or b% prescription@$1 that the deed of donationin consideration of the &arria(e of the parents of petitioners is valid, hence, it led to theeventual issuance of T!T No. 0001$ in the na&es of said parents@$ and thatrespondent heirs of 2ortunato Doronio plaintiffs- are not entitled to da&a(es as the%are not the ri(htful o#ners of the portion of the propert% the% are clai&in(.)*

The RT! disposed of the case, thus?

9H R 2OR , pre&ises considered, the !ourt hereb% renders 'ud(&ent DISMISSIN8the herein !o&plaint filed b% plaintiffs a(ainst defendants.)$

Disa(reein( #ith the 'ud(&ent of the RT!, respondents appealed to the !5. The%ar(ued that the trial court erred in not findin( that respondents predecessor6in6interestacBuired one6half of the propert% covered b% O!T No. /3) b% tradition andKor intestatesuccession@ that the deed of donation dated 5pril )+, $ $ #as null and void@ that

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt21


18/275

assu&in( that the deed of donation #as valid, onl% one6half of the propert% #as actuall%donated to Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico@ and that respondents acBuiredo#nership of the other half portion of the propert% b% acBuisitive prescription.))

CA "-&%o&-(-o'

In a Decision dated ;anuar% )+, )**3, the !5 reversed the RT! decision #ith thefollo#in( disposition?

9H R 2OR , the assailed Decision dated ;une )1, )**) is R V RS D and S T 5SID . Declarin( the appellants as ri(htful o#ners of one6half of the propert% no#covered b% T!T No. 0001$, the appellees are hereb% directed to e:ecute a re(isterabledocu&ent conve%in( the sa&e to appellants.

SO ORD R D.)/

The appellate court deter&ined that A t-he intention to donate half of the disputedpropert% to appellees predecessors can be (leaned fro& the disparit% of technicaldescriptions appearin( in the title O!T No. /3)- of spouses Si&eon Doronio and!ornelia 8ante and in the deed of donation propter nuptias e:ecuted on 5pril )0, $ $in favor of appellees predecessors.A)0

The !5 based its conclusion on the disparit% of the follo#in( technical descriptions ofthe propert% under O!T No. /3) and the deed of donation, to #it?

The court belo# described the propert% covered b% O!T No. /3) as follo#s?

AFn terreno 4ote $*$1-, situada en el &unicipio de 5sin(an, 4inda por el N @ conpropriedad de 8abriel "ernardino@ con el S con propriedad de acarias Na'orda %

5le'andro Na'orda@ por el SO con propriedad de 8e&iniano Mendo


19/275

is a #ell6settled rule that an% ob'ection to the ad&issibilit% of such evidence not raised#ill be considered #aived and said evidence #ill have to for& part of the records of thecase as co&petent and ad&itted evidence.A )7

The !5 li=e#ise ruled that the donation of the entire propert% in favor of petitionerspredecessors is invalid on the (round that it i&pairs the le(iti&e of respondentspredecessor, 2ortunato Doronio. On this aspect, the !5 reasoned out?

Moreover, 9e find the donation of the entire propert% in favor of appelleespredecessors invalid as it i&pairs the le(iti&e of appellants predecessor. 5rticle +$ ofthe !ivil !ode is e:plicit. AIn default of testa&entar% heirs, the la# vests the inheritance,: : :, in the le(iti&ate : : : relatives of the deceased, : : :.A 5s Spouses Si&eonDoronio and !ornelia 8ante died intestate, their propert% shall pass to their la#ful heirs,na&el%? 2ortunato and Marcelino Doronio. Donatin( the entire propert% to MarcelinoDoronio and Veronica Pico and e:cludin( another heir, 2ortunato, tanta&ounts todivestin( the latter of his ri(htful share in his parents inheritance. "esides, a person sprero(ative to &a=e donations is sub'ect to certain li&itations, one of #hich is that hecannot (ive b% donation &ore than #hat he can (ive b% #ill 5rticle 73), !ivil !ode-. Ifhe does, so &uch of #hat is donated as e:ceeds #hat he can (ive b% #ill is dee&edinofficious and the donation is reducible to the e:tent of such e:cess. )1

Petitioners #ere not pleased #ith the decision of the !5. Hence, this petition under Rule03.

I&&u$&Petitioners no# contend that the !5 erred in?

$. D !45RIN8 5DMISSI"I4IT O2 TH ORI8IN54 ! RTI2I!5T O2 TIT4NO. /3) D SPIT O2 45!Q O2 TR5NS45TION TH R O2.

). RF4IN8 TH5T- ON4 H542 O2 TH DISPFT D PROP RT 95SDON5T D TO TH PR D ! SSORS6IN6INT R ST O2 TH H R IN

5PP 445NTS.

/. ITS- D !45R5TION TH5T TH DON5TION PROPT R NFPTI5S ISINNO2I!IOFS, IS PR M5TFR , 5ND THFS IT IS I44 854 5NDFNPRO! DFR54. )

Ou# Rul-'

O!T No. /3) in Spanish 5lthou(h NotTranslated into n(lish or 2ilipino Is

5d&issible 2or 4ac= of Ti&el% Ob'ection

Petitioners fault the !5 for ad&ittin( O!T No. /3) in evidence on the (round that it is#ritten in Spanish lan(ua(e. The% posit that A d-ocu&entar% evidence in an unofficiallan(ua(e shall not be ad&itted as evidence, unless acco&panied #ith a translation into

n(lish or 2ilipino.A/*

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt30


20/275

The ar(u&ent is untenable. The reBuire&ent that docu&ents #ritten in an unofficiallan(ua(e &ust be acco&panied #ith a translation in n(lish or 2ilipino as a prereBuisitefor its ad&ission in evidence &ust be insisted upon b% the parties at the trial to enablethe court, #here a translation has been i&pu(ned as incorrect, to decide theissue. /$ 9here such docu&ent, not so acco&panied #ith a translation in n(lish or2ilipino, is offered in evidence and not ob'ected to, either b% the parties or the court, it&ust be presu&ed that the lan(ua(e in #hich the docu&ent is #ritten is understood b%all, and the docu&ent is ad&issible in evidence. /)

Moreover, Section /+, Rule $/) of the Revised Rules of vidence provides?

S !TION /+. Ob'ection. Ob'ection to evidence offered orall% &ust be &adei&&ediatel% after the offer is &ade.

Ob'ection to a Buestion propounded in the course of the oral e:a&ination of a #itnessshall be &ade as soon as the (rounds therefor shall beco&e reasonabl% apparent.

5n offer of evidence in #ritin( shall be ob'ected to #ithin three /- da%s after notice ofthe offer unless a different period is allo#ed b% the court.

In an% case, the (rounds for the ob'ections &ust be specified. &phasis ours-

Since petitioners did not ob'ect to the offer of said docu&entar% evidence on ti&e, it isno# too late in the da% for the& to Buestion its ad&issibilit%. The rule is that evidencenot ob'ected &a% be dee&ed ad&itted and &a% be validl% considered b% the court inarrivin( at its 'ud(&ent. // This is true even if b% its nature, the evidence is inad&issibleand #ould have surel% been re'ected if it had been challen(ed at the proper ti&e. /0

5s a &atter of fact, instead of ob'ectin(, petitioners ad&itted the contents of :hibit A5,Athat is, O!T No. /3) in their co&&ent /3 on respondents for&al offer of docu&entar%evidence. In the said co&&ent, petitioners alle(ed, a&on( others, that A :hibits 5, ", !,D, , 2 and 8, are ad&itted but not for the purpose the% are offered because thesee:hibits bein( public and official docu&ents are the best evidence of that the% containand not for #hat a part% #ould li=e it to prove.A/+ Said evidence #as ad&itted b% the

RT!./7

Once ad&itted #ithout ob'ection, even thou(h not ad&issible under an ob'ection,9e are not inclined no# to re'ect it ./1 !onseBuentl%, the evidence that #as not ob'ectedto beca&e propert% of the case, and all parties to the case are considered a&enable toan% favorable or unfavorable effects resultin( fro& the said evidence./

Issues on I&pair&ent of 4e(iti&eShould "e Threshed Out in a SpecialProceedin(, Not in !ivil 5ction for Reconve%ance and Da&a(es

On the other hand, petitioners are correct in alle(in( that the issue re(ardin( thei&pair&ent of le(iti&e of 2ortunato Doronio &ust be resolved in an action for thesettle&ent of estates of spouses Si&eon Doronio and !ornelia 8ante. It &a% not bepassed upon in an action for reconve%ance and da&a(es. 5 probate court, in thee:ercise of its li&ited 'urisdiction, is the best foru& to ventilate and ad'ud(e the issue ofi&pair&ent of le(iti&e as #ell as other related &atters involvin( the settle&ent ofestate. 0*

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt40


21/275


22/275

Thus, under Section ), Rule * of the Rules of !ourt, Buestions as to advance&ent&ade or alle(ed to have been &ade b% the deceased to an% heir &a% be heard anddeter&ined b% the court havin( 'urisdiction of the estate proceedin(s, and the final order of the court thereon shall be bindin( on the person raisin( the Buestions and on the heir.

9hile it &a% be true that the Rules used the #ord A&a%,A it is nevertheless clear that thesa&e provision conte&plates a probate court #hen it spea=s of the Acourt havin(

'urisdiction of the estate proceedin(s.A

!orollaril%, the Re(ional Trial !ourt in the instant case, actin( in its (eneral 'urisdiction,is devoid of authorit% to render an ad'udication and resolve the issue of advance&ent ofthe real propert% in favor of herein petitioner Natcher, inas&uch as !ivil !ase No. 7$*73for reconve%ance and annul&ent of title #ith da&a(es is not, to our &ind, the propervehicle to thresh out said Buestion. Moreover, under the present circu&stances, theRT! of Manila, "ranch 33, #as not properl% constituted as a probate court so as tovalidl% pass upon the Buestion of advance&ent &ade b% the decedent 8raciano DelRosario to his #ife, herein petitioner Natcher.

9e li=e#ise find &erit in petitioners contention that before an% conclusion about thele(al share due to a co&pulsor% heir &a% be reached, it is necessar% that certain stepsbe ta=en first.0/ The net estate of the decedent &ust be ascertained, b% deductin( allpa%able obli(ations and char(es fro& the value of the propert% o#ned b% the deceasedat the ti&e of his death@ then, all donations sub'ect to collation #ould be added to it.9ith the partible estate thus deter&ined, the le(iti&e of the co&pulsor% heir or heirs can

be established@ and onl% then can it be ascertained #hether or not a donation hadpre'udiced the le(iti&es. 00

Declaration of Validit% of Donation!an "e !hallen(ed b% an InterestedPart% Not I&pleaded in Petition for

uietin( of Title or Declarator% Relief or 9here There is No Res ;udicata.Moreover, This !ourt !an !onsider a 2actual Matter or Fnassi(ned rror

in the Interest of Substantial ;ustice.

Nevertheless, petitioners cannot preclude the deter&ination of validit% of the deed ofdonation on the (round that $- it has been i&pliedl% ad&itted b% respondents@ )- it hasalread% been deter&ined #ith finalit% b% the RT! in Petition !ase No. F6 )*@ or /- theonl% issue in an action for reconve%ance is #ho has a better ri(ht over the land.03

The validit% of the private deed of donation propter nuptias in favor of petitionerspredecessors #as one of the issues in this case before the lo#er courts. The pre6trialorder 0+ of the RT! stated that one of the issues before it is A #-hether or not the transfer of the #hole propert% covered b% O!T No. /3) on the basis of the private deed ofdonation not#ithstandin( the discrepanc% in the description is valid.A "efore the !5, oneof the errors assi(ned b% respondents is that ATH TRI54 !OFRT RR D IN NOT2INDIN8 TH5T TH PRIV5T D D O2 DON5TION D5T D 5PRI4 )+, $ $ 95SNF44 5ND VOID.A07

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt47


23/275

The issue of the validit% of donation is li=e#ise brou(ht to Fs b% petitioners as the%stated in their Me&orandu&01that one of the issues to be resolved is re(ardin( thealle(ed fact that ATH HONOR5"4 !OFRT O2 5PP 54S RR D IN 2INDIN8 THDON5TION INV54ID.A 9e are thus poised to inspect the deed of donation and todeter&ine its validit%.

9e cannot a(ree #ith petitioners contention that respondents &a% no lon(er Buestionthe validit% of the deed of donation on the (round that the% alread% i&pliedl% ad&itted it.Fnder the provisions of the !ivil !ode, a void contract is ine:istent fro& the be(innin(.The ri(ht to set up the defense of its ille(alit% cannot be #aived.0 The ri(ht to set up thenullit% of a void or non6e:istent contract is not li&ited to the parties as in the case ofannullable or voidable contracts@ it is e:tended to third persons #ho are directl% affectedb% the contract.3*

!onseBuentl%, althou(h respondents are not parties in the deed of donation, the% canset up its nullit% because the% are directl% affected b% the sa&e.3$ The sub'ect of thedeed bein( the land the% are occup%in(, its enforce&ent #ill definitel% affect the&.

Petitioners cannot also use the finalit% of the RT! decision in Petition !ase No. F6)*3) as a shield a(ainst the verification of the validit% of the deed of donation.

5ccordin( to petitioners, the said final decision is one for Buietin( of title.3/ In other#ords, it is a case for declarator% relief under Rule +0 no# Rule +/- of the Rules of!ourt, #hich provides?

S !TION $. 9ho &a% file petition. 5n% person interested under a deed, #ill, contractor other #ritten instru&ent, or #hose ri(hts are affected b% a statute, e:ecutive order orre(ulation, or ordinance, &a%, before breach or violation thereof, brin( an action todeter&ine an% Buestion of construction or validit% arisin( under the instru&ent or statuteand for a declaration of his ri(hts or duties thereunder.

5n action for the refor&ation of an instru&ent, to Buiet title to real propert% or re&oveclouds therefro&, or to consolidate o#nership under 5rticle $+*7 of the !ivil !ode, &a%be brou(ht under this rule.

S !TION ). Parties. 5ll persons shall be &ade parties #ho have or clai& an% interest#hich #ould be affected b% the declaration@ and no declaration shall, e:cept asother#ise provided in these rules, pre'udice the ri(hts of persons not parties to theaction. &phasis ours-

Ho#ever, respondents #ere not &ade parties in the said Petition !ase No. F6)*.13%phi1 9orse, instead of issuin( su&&ons to interested parties, the RT! &erel%

allo#ed the postin( of notices on the bulletin boards of "aran(a% !abalitaan,Municipalities of 5sin(an and 4in(a%en, Pan(asinan. 5s pointed out b% the !5, citin(the rulin( of the RT!?

: : : In the said case or Petition No. F6 )*, notices #ere posted on the bulletin boardsof baran(a% !abalitaan, Municipalities of 5sin(an and 4in(a%en, Pan(asinan, so thatthere #as a notice to the #hole #orld and durin( the initial hearin( andKor hearin(s, noone interposed ob'ection thereto. 30

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt54


24/275

Suits to Buiet title are not technicall% suits in re&, nor are the%, strictl% spea=in(, inpersona&, but bein( a(ainst the person in respect of the res, these proceedin(s arecharacteri


25/275

5 rudi&entar% doctrine on appealed cases is that this !ourt is clothed #ith a&pleauthorit% to revie# &atters, even if the% are not assi(ned as errors on appeal, if it findsthat their consideration is necessar% at arrivin( at a 'ust decision of the case. +1 5lso, anunassi(ned error closel% related to an error properl% assi(ned or upon #hich thedeter&ination of the Buestion raised b% the error properl% assi(ned is dependent, #ill beconsidered b% the appellate court not#ithstandin( the failure to assi(n it as an error. +

Donation Propter Nuptias of RealPropert% Made in a Private Instru&ent"efore the Ne# !ivil !ode Too= ffecton 5u(ust /*, $ 3* is Void

9e no# focus on the cru: of the petition, #hich is the validit% of the deed ofdonation.1avvphi1 It is settled that onl% la#s e:istin( at the ti&e of the e:ecution of acontract are applicable to it and not the later statutes, unless the latter are specificall%intended to have retroactive effect.7* 5ccordin(l%, the Old !ivil !ode applies in this caseas the donation propter nuptias #as e:ecuted in $ $ , #hile the Ne# !ivil !ode too=effect onl% on 5u(ust /*, $ 3*.

Fnder the Old !ivil !ode, donations propter nuptias &ust be &ade in a publicinstru&ent in #hich the propert% donated &ust be specificall% described.7$ 5rticle $/)1of the Old !ivil !ode provides that (ifts propter nuptias are (overned b% the rulesestablished in Title ) of "oo= / of the sa&e !ode. 5rticle +// of that title provides thatthe (ift of real propert%, in order to be valid, &ust appear in a public docu&ent.7) It is

settled that a donation of real estate propter nuptias is void unless &ade b% publicinstru&ent.7/

In the instant case, the donation propter nuptias did not beco&e valid. Neither did itcreate an% ri(ht because it #as not &ade in a public instru&ent. 70 Hence, it conve%edno title to the land in Buestion to petitioners predecessors.

4o(icall%, then, the cancellation of O!T No. /3) and the issuance of a ne# T!T No.0001$ in favor of petitioners predecessors have no le(al basis. The title to the sub'ectpropert% should, therefore, be restored to its ori(inal o#ners under O!T No. /3).

Direct reconve%ance to an% of the parties is not possible as it has not %et beendeter&ined in a proper proceedin( #ho a&on( the heirs of spouses Si&eon Doronioand !ornelia 8ante is entitled to it. It is still unproven #hether or not the parties are theonl% ones entitled to the properties of spouses Si&eon Doronio and !ornelia 8ante. 5searlier inti&ated, there are still thin(s to be done before the le(al share of all the heirscan be properl% ad'udicated.73

Titled Propert% !annot "e 5cBuired"% 5nother "% 5dverse Possession

or :tinctive Prescription

4i=e#ise, the clai& of respondents that the% beca&e o#ners of the propert% b%acBuisitive prescription has no &erit. Truth to tell, respondents cannot successfull%invo=e the ar(u&ent of e:tinctive prescription. The% cannot be dee&ed the o#ners b%acBuisitive prescription of the portion of the propert% the% have been possessin(. Thereason is that the propert% #as covered b% O!T No. /3). 5 title once re(istered under

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_169454_2007.html#fnt75


26/275

the torrens s%ste& cannot be defeated even b% adverse, open and notoriouspossession@ neither can it be defeated b% prescription.7+ It is notice to the #hole #orldand as such all persons are bound b% it and no one can plead i(norance of there(istration.77

The torrens s%ste& is intended to (uarantee the inte(rit% and conclusiveness of thecertificate of re(istration, but it cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud a(ainst thereal o#ner of the re(istered land. 71 The s%ste& &erel% confir&s o#nership and does notcreate it. !ertainl%, it cannot be used to divest the la#ful o#ner of his title for thepurpose of transferrin( it to another #ho has not acBuired it b% an% of the &odesallo#ed or reco(ni


27/275

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

N "5N!

G.R. No. L 15::5 A%#-l 29, 1981

IN T=E MATTER O T=E INTESTATE ESTATE O T=E "ECEASE" MERCE"ESCANO. LORANTE C. TIMBOL, ad&inistrator6appellee,vs.

JOSE CANO, oppositor6appellant.

0ose P. 'austo for ad inistrator4appellee.'ile on "a5ator for oppositor4appellant.

LABRA"OR, J .<

5ppeal fro& an order of the !ourt of 2irst Instance of Pa&pan(a, Hon. 5rsenio Santos,presidin(, dated 5u(ust )3, $ 31, approvin( petitions of the ad&inistrator 2lorante !.Ti&bol dated ;anuar% + and 1, $ 31. The order appealed fro& authori


28/275

condition that all previous obli(ations of the ad&inistration includin( the previousdeficits are assu&ed b% said ad&inistrator, and that the arran(e&ent #illcontinue onl% as lon( as, in the 'ud(&ent of conta(eous to the heir, the !ourt, thesa&e continues to be advanta(eous to the heir, 2lorante !. Ti&bol. p. )7, Rec.on 5ppeal-

On ;anuar% $0, $ 3+ the court, upon &otion of the ad&inistrator and the confor&it% ofthe &inor heir and his uncles, approved the reduction of the annual rental of thea(ricultural lands of the intestate leased to the ad&inistrator fro& P0,*** to P),0** andthe conversion of /* hectares of the a(ricultural lands into a subdivision.

On 5pril ), $ 37, upon &otion of the ad&inistrator, a pro'ect of partition #as approved,desi(natin( 2lorante !. Ti&bol the sole and e:clusive heir of all the properties of theintestate.

On ;une +, $ 37 2lorante !. Ti&bol #as appointed ad&inistrator in place of ;ose !anoand on ;anuar% +, $ 31 he presented a &otion, #hich he &odified ina subseBuent oneof ;anuar% 1, $ 31, alle(in( a&on( other thin(s a- that the area destined for thepro'ected subdivision be increased fro& /* hectares to 0$. )// hectares and b- thatthe plan sub&itted be approved. The &otions #ere approved but the approval #asi&&ediatel% thereafter set aside to (ive opportunit% to the for&er ad&inistrator andlessee ;ose !ano to for&ulate his ob'ections to the &otions. !anoCs ob'ections are $-that the enlar(e&ent of the subdivision #ould reduce the land leased to hi& and #oulddeprive his tenants of their landholdin(s, and b- that he is in possession under e:press

authorit% of the court, under a valid contract, and &a% not be deprived of his leaseholdsu&&aril% upon a si&ple petition.

The court (ranted the &otions of the ad&inistrator, overrulin( the ob'ections of ;ose!ano, in the order no# sub'ect of appeal, #hich reads?

The said contract of lease is on all for&s ille(al. Fnder article $+0+ of the !ivil!ode of the Philippines, a ne# provision, Athe persons disBualified to bu%referred to in articles $0 * and $0 $, are also disBualified to beco&e lessee ofthe thin(s &entioned therein,A and under article $0 $ /- o the sa&e !ode,

e:ecutors and ad&inistrators cannot acBuire b% purchase the propert% of theestate under ad&inistration.

If, as alread% stated, 2lorante !. Ti&bol #as onl% pointed ad&inistrator on ;une+, $ 37 and the said contract of lease havin( been e:ecuted on ;ul% , $ 3+, thesa&e fall #ithin the prohibition provided b% la#. Ho#ever, ;ose !. !ano aversthat this !ourt, in the instant proceedin(s, cannot pass upon the le(alit% of theaforesaid lease contract, but in its (eneral 'urisdiction. There is no need for thecourt to declare such contract ille(al and, therefore, null and void as the la# soe:pressl% provides.

9H R 2OR , in vie# of the fore(oin( considerations the court hereb% (rants2lorante !. Ti&bolCs petitions date ;anuar% + and 1, $ 31, approvin( thea&ended plan for sub division, attached thereto, and overrules ;ose !. !anoCs&otion for reconsideration dated Ma% , sa&e %ear. pp. $3$6$3) Record on

5ppeal- The above is the sub'ect of the present appeal.


29/275

The above is the sub'ect of the present appeal.

In the first assi(n&ent of error appellant clai&s that the consideration of the &otions ofthe ad&inistrator ;ul% + and 1, $ 31, #ithout due notice to hi&, #ho is lessee is aviolation of the Rules of !ourt. This ob'ection lost its force #hen the court, otu

proprio set aside it first order of approval and furnished cop% of the &otion to appellantand (ave hi& all the opportunit% to present his ob'ections thereto.

In the second and third assi(n&ents of error appellant ar(ues that the court belo#, as aprobate court, has no 'urisdiction to deprive the appellant of his ri(hts under the lease,because these ri(hts &a% be annulled or &odified onl% b% a court of (eneral 'urisdiction.The above ar(u&ents are #ithout &erit. In probate proceedin(s the court orders theprobate of the #ill of the decedent Rule 1*, See. 3-@ (rants letters of ad&inistration tothe part% best entitled thereto or to an% Bualified applicant Id ., Sec. +-@ supervises andcontrols all acts of ad&inistration@ hears and approves clai&s a(ainst the estate of thedeceased Rule 17, See. $/-@ orders pa%&ent of la#ful debts Rule 1 , Sec. $0-@authori


30/275

The si:th assi(n&ent of error &erits no attention on our part@ it is appellant hi&self #ho,as ad&inistrator since $ 03, has dela%ed the settle&ent of the estate.

In the seventh assi(n&ent of error, appellant ar(ues that since the pro'ect of partitionhad alread% been approved and had beco&e final, the lo#er court has lost 'urisdiction toappoint a ne# ad&inistrator or to authori


31/275

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

N "5N!

G.R. No. L 28895 J 'u #y 31, 1972

JUANITA LOPE> GUILAS,petitioner,vs.JU"GE O T=E COURT O IRST INSTANCE O PAMPANGA AN" ALEJAN"ROLOPE> respondents .

'ile on "a5ator for petitioner.

6ligio G. $ag an for respondent le5andro $opez.

MA?ASIAR, J.:

p

It appears fro& the records that ;acinta 4i&son de 4ope


32/275

5nne: ADA, pp. )76/+, rec.- #ere ad'udicated to ;uanita 4ope


33/275

her petition because he #as the one #ho prepared, filed and secured court approval of,the aforesaid pro'ect of partition, #hich she see=s to be i&ple&ented@ that she is not(uilt% of laches, because #hen she filed on ;ul% )*, $ +0, her petition for he deliver% ofher share allocated to her under the pro'ect of partition, less than / %ears had elapsedfro& 5u(ust )1, $ +$ #hen the a&ended pro'ect of partition #as approved, #hich is#ithin the 36%ear period for the e:ecution of 'ud(&ent b% &otion 5nne: A;A, pp. 0 63),rec.-.

In its order dated October ), $ +0, the lo#er court after a Apre6trialA stated that becausethe civil action for the annul&ent of the pro'ect of partition #as filed on 5pril $/, $ +0,before the filin( on ;ul% ), $ +0 of the petition for deliver% of the shares of ;uanita4ope


34/275

SubseBuentl%, 5le'andro filed a &otion dated ;ul% )3, $ ++ pra%in( that the pala%deposited #ith 2ericsons and Ideal Rice Mill b% the ten $*- tenants of the t#o parcels inBuestion be delivered to hi& 5nne: ARA, pp. $$06$$+, rec.-,to #hich ;uanita filed anopposition dated ;ul% )+, $ ++ 5nne: ASA, pp. $$76$)$, rec.-. In an order datedSepte&ber 1, $ ++, the lo#er court denied the &otion for reconsideration of the orderdated 5pril )7, $ ++, and directed 2ericsons Inc. and the Ideal Rice Mills to deliver to

5le'andro or his representative the )) cavans and 0+ =ilos and /)3 and $K) cavansand )/ =ilos of pala% respectivel% deposited #ith the said rice &ills upon the filin( b%

5le'andro of a bond in the a&ount of P$),***.** dul% approved b% the court 5nne: ATA,pp. $))6$)7, rec.-. Hence, this petition for certiorari

and anda us.

The position of petitioner ;uanita 4ope


35/275

$3, $ +* of the probate court closin( and ter&inatin( the probate case did not le(all%ter&inate the testate proceedin(s, for her share under the pro'ect of partition has notbeen delivered to her.

9hile it is true that the order dated October ), $ +0 b% a(ree&ent of the partiessuspended resolution of her petition for the deliver% of her shares until after the decisionin the civil action for the annul&ent of the pro'ect of partition !ivil !ase )3/ - she filedon 5pril $*, $ +0@ the said order lost its validit% and efficac% #hen the herein petitionerfiled on ;une $$, $ +3 an a&ended co&plaint in said !ivil !ase )3/ #herein shereco(ni


36/275


Manila

N "5N!

G.R. No. L 52 M #/+ 19, 19:9

LEONI"A MARI ') CARI"A" E!ANGELISTA, plaintiffs6appellees,

vs.ISAAC BONILLA ') SIL!INA OR"A E>, defendants6appellants.

Ignacio ;a#ong for appellants. gustin agasao for appellees.

TUASON,J.


37/275

This action #as brou(ht to recover plaintiffCs co&bined /K0 share in a parcel of land soldto defendant b% Deo(racias van(elista plaintiff co6o#ner. The case #as sub&ittedupon the follo#in( a(reed state&ent of facts?

$. That !asi&iro van(elista is a re(istered o#ner of a parcel of landho&estead- as evidenced b% Ori(inal !ertificate of Title No. 0 *3, of the re(ister

of deeds of Nueva ci'a, consistin( of 7.*+3) hectares &ore or less situated atValdefuente, !abanatuan, Nueva ci'a@

). That !asi&iro van(elista #as &arried to 4eonida Mari plaintiff herein on2ebruar% 7, $ )* at Rie< in Doc. $*, Pa(e No. /$ "oo= No. $1, series of $ 00 of Notar% Public!arlos M. 2errer incorporated and attached herein as :hibit ", as part of thisa(ree&ent@

+. That the certificate of &arria(e of !asi&iro van(elista and 4eonida Mari andHerein attached as :hibit ! and &ade a part of this a(ree&ent@

7. That after the said sale on ;anuar% $*, $ 00 ori(inal certificate of title No.

0 *3 #as cancelled and in lieu thereof transfer certificate of title No. $ $ #asissued in the spouses Isaac "onilla and Silvina Orda>e


38/275

$$. That the attorne% for the plaintiff reserve the ri(ht to present a &e&orandu&discussin( the le(al point of these a(ree&ent of facts #ithin / da%s fro& date ofthese a(ree&ent and the defendants counsel #ill ans#er the sa&e #ithin / da%s,after receipt of the plaintiffCs &e&orandu&.

;ud(e !atalino "uenaventura (ave 'ud(&ent for plaintiff #ithout costs. This is anappeal fro& that 'ud(&ent.

The (rava&en of appellants contention is (ood faith. The% cite three decisions one of#hich is "astillo vs. 9aldez , 3/ Phil., $)* #herein the court said?

5 purchaser for value #ho ta=es propert% upon the faith of the certificate soissued acBuires a (ood title. 5n% other conclusion #ould be #holl% inconsistent#ith the spirit and purpose of the 4and Re(istration 4a#. Of course so lon( sathe propert% re&ains in the hands of the person #ho has acBuired title irre(ularl%he can be &ade to surrender the certificate to be cancelled. "ut it is not so #ithan innocent purchaser for value. . . .

5ppellants citation do not fit into the facts of the present case. 8ood faith affordsprotection onl% to purchaser for value fro& the re(istered o#ner. Deo(racias

van(elista, defendants (rantor is not a re(istered o#ner. The land #as and still isre(istered in the na&e of !asi&iro van(elista. In no #a% does the certificate of titlestate that Deo(racias o#ned the land? conseBuentl% defendant cannot su&&on to theiraid the theor% of indefeasibilit% of Torrens title. There is nothin( in the certificate and in

the circu&stances of the transaction #hich the& in supposin( that the% needed notloo=ed be%ond the title. If an%thin( it should have put the& on their (uard cautionedthe& to ascertain and verif% that vendor #as the onl% heir of his father that there #as nodebt and that the latter #as the sole o#ner of the parcel.

If as is probabl% the case defendants relied on the court order ad'udicatin( toDeo(racias van(elista the entire estate in the distribution held under Rule 70 of theRules of !ourt their innocence avails the& less as a(ainst the true o#ners of the land.That #as a su&&ar% settle&ent &ade on the faith and stren(th of the distributes self6servin( affidavit@ section 0 of the above6&entioned rule provides that, AIf it shall appear

at an%thin( #ithin t#o %ear after the settle&ent and distribution of an estate . . . that anheir or other person has been undul% deprived of his la#ful participation in the estatesuch heir or other person &a% co&pel the settle&ent of the estate in the court in the&anner herein provided for purpose of satisf%in( such participation.A 2ar fro& shieldin(defendants a(ainst loss the ad'udication and the rule under #hich it #as &ade (avethe& a clear #arnin( that the% #ere actin( at their peril. A5 'udicial partition in probateproceedin( does not bind the heir #ho #ere not parties thereon. No partition 'udicial ore:tra'udicial could add one iota or particle to the interest #hich the partitioner had durin(the 'oint possession. Partition is of the nature of a conve%ance of o#nership andcertainl% none of the co6o#ner &a% conve% to the other &ore than his o#n true ri(ht. 5

'udicial partition in probate proceedin( is not final and conclusive and not bein( of suchdefinitive as to stop all &ean of redress for a co6heir #ho has been deprived of hisla#ful share such co6heir &a% still #ithin the prescriptive period brin( an actionfor reivindicacion in the province #here an% of the real propert% of the deceased &a% besituated. "road perspective of public polic% are set out in the opinion of the court in


39/275

support of the #isdo& of allo#in( a co6heir the benefits of the la# of prescription evenafter a partition 'udicial or e:tra'udicial has been had.A 4a'o&vs. Viola, 7/ Phil., 3+/. -

The 'ud(&ent is affir&ed #ith cost of this appeal a(ainst appellants.

2oran ".0. Paras 'eria Pa#lo Perfecto engzon riones 2onte ayor and &eyes00. concur.


40/275


Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 17 933 S$%($ *$# 18, 2009

RICAR"O S. SIL!ERIO, JR. Petitioner,vs.COURT O APPEALS @ - (+ "- -&-o' ') NELIA S. SIL!ERIO "EE, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

!ELASCO, JR., J.:

The !ase

This Petition for Revie# on !ertiorari under Rule +3 see=s the reversal of the Ma% 0,)**7 Resolution $ and ;ul% +, )**7 Decision) of the !ourt of 5ppeals !5- in !568.R.SP No. 17+0, entitled Nelia S. Silverio6Dee and Rica

Documents

Spec Pro Cases- Batch 3 - Copy