Specpro Distribution and Escheats

7/25/2019 Specpro Distribution and Escheats

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/specpro-distribution-and-escheats 1/4

5. Distribution and closure of estate (Rule 90)

Cases:

Fe Quita v CA and Blandina Dandan

Facts:

1. Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan !ere "arried in t#e P#ili$$ines on %a& 1' 191. o c#ildren

!ere born out of t#eir "arria*e.

+. ,n -ul& + 195 Quita obtained a /nal ud*"ent of diorce in 2an Francisco 3.2.A. 4n t#e

diorce $roceedin* s#e sub"itted a $riate !ritin* eidencin* t#eir a*ree"ent to lie

se$aratel& fro" eac# ot#er and a settle"ent of t#eir conu*al $ro$erties.

. T#ree () !ees after s#e "arried Feli6 Tu$a7 in t#e sa"e localit& but t#eir relations#i$ also

ended in a diorce. 2till in t#e 3.2.A. s#e "arried for t#e t#ird ti"e to a certain 8erni"ont.

. ,n A$ril 1 19+ Arturo died leain* no !ill. ;ino -aier 4ncion* /led a $etition !it# t#e RTC

for issuance of letters of ad"inistration concernin* t#e estate of Arturo in faor of t#e P#ili$$ine

Trust Co"$an&.

. <landina Dandan clai"in* to be t#e suriin* s$ouse of Arturo and t#e suriin* c#ildren all

surna"ed Padlan o$$osed t#e $etition.

5. RTC e6$ressed t#at t#e "arria*e bet!een Antonio and $etitioner subsisted until t#e deat# of

Arturo in 19+ and t#at t#e "arria*e e6isted bet!een <landina and Arturo !as clearl& oid

since it !as celebrated durin* t#e e6istence of #is $reious "arria*e to $etitioner.

. T#e Court of A$$eals re"anded t#e case to t#e trial court for furt#er $roceedin*s.

4ssues:

1. 8, t#e case be re"anded to t#e lo!er court=

+. 8#o bet!een t#e $etitioner and $riate res$ondent is t#e $ro$er #eir of t#e decedent=

>eld:

4f t#ere is a controers& before t#e court as to !#o are t#e la!ful #eirs of t#e deceased $erson or

as to t#e distributie s#ares to !#ic# eac# $erson is entitled under t#e la! t#e controers& s#all

be #eard and decided as in ordinar& cases.

o dis$ute e6ists as to t#e ri*#t of t#e si6 Padlan c#ildren to in#erit fro" t#e decedent because

t#ere are $roofs t#at t#e& #ae been dul& acno!led*ed b& #i" and $etitioner #erself een

reco*ni7es t#e" as #eirs of Arturo Padlan nor as to t#eir res$ectie #ereditar& s#ares.

<landina is not a suriin* s$ouse t#at can in#erit fro" #i" as t#is status $resu$$oses a

le*iti"ate relations#i$. >er "arria*e to Arturo bein* a bi*a"ous "arria*e considered oid ab

inito under Articles '0 and ' of t#e Ciil Code renders #er not a suriin* s$ouse.

T#e decision of t#e Court of A$$eals orderin* t#e re"and of t#e case is a?r"ed.



Emilio Pacioles v Miguela Ching (mother of Meguelita)

Facts:

1. %i*uelita died intestate leain* real $ro$erties stoc inest"ents ban de$osits and

interests in certain businesses. 2#e !as suried b& #er #usband @"ilio and t#eir t!o "inor

c#ildren. @"ilio Pacioles /led !it# t#e RTC a eri/ed $etition for t#e settle"ent of %i*uelitas

estate.

+. %i*uelitas "ot#er %i*uela /led an o$$osition on t#e *rounds t#at $etitioner is inco"$etentand un/t to e6ercise t#e duties of an ad"inistratorB and t#e bul of %i*uelitas estate is

co"$osed of $ara$#ernal $ro$erties.

. @"ilio "oed to strie out res$ondents o$$osition alle*in* t#at t#e latter #as no direct and

"aterial interest in t#e estate. Res$ondent countered t#at s#e #as direct and "aterial interest in

t#e estate because s#e *ae #alf of #er in#erited $ro$erties to %i*uelita on condition t#at bot#

of t#e" !ould undertae !#ateer business endeaor t#e& decided to in t#e ca$acit& of

business $artners. 2#e t#en no"inated #er son @""anuel C#in* to act as s$ecial ad"inistrator.

. T#e intestate court t#en issued an order a$$ointin* @"ilio and @""anuel as oint re*ular

ad"inistrators of t#e estate and t#en declared $etitioner and #is t!o "inor c#ildren as t#e onl&

co"$ulsor& #eirs of %i*uelita. @"ilio t#en sub"itted to t#e intestate court an inentor& of%i*uelitas estate. @""anuel did not sub"it an inentor&.

5. @"ilio /led !it# t#e intestate court an o"nibus "otion t#at an ,rder be issued directin* t#e:

1) $a&"ent of estate ta6esB +) $artition and distribution of t#e estate a"on* t#e declared #eirsB

and ) $a&"ent of attorne&s fees.

. %i*uelat o$$osed on t#e *round t#at t#e $artition and distribution of t#e estate is $re"ature

and $reci$itate considerin* t#at t#ere is &et no deter"ination !#et#er t#e $ro$erties s$eci/ed

in t#e inentor& are conu*al $ara$#ernal or o!ned in a oint enture.

. T#e intestate court allo!ed t#e $a&"ent of t#e estate ta6es and attorne&s fees but denied

$etitioners $ra&er for $artition and distribution of t#e estate #oldin* t#at it is indeed

$re"ature. 4t also ordered t#at a #earin* on o$$ositors clai" as indicated in #er o$$osition tot#e instant $etition is necessar& to deter"ine E!#et#er t#e $ro$erties listed in t#e a"ended

co"$laint /led b& $etitioner are entirel& conu*al or t#e $ara$#ernal $ro$erties of t#e deceased

or a coo!ners#i$ bet!een t#e o$$ositor and t#e $etitioner in t#eir $artners#i$ enture.

'. @"ilio Guestioned t#is order but t#e %R !as denied. T#erefore a Petition for Certiorari !it# t#e

CA.

4ssue: Did t#e lo!er court acted !it# *rae abuse of discretion in orderin* t#at a #earin* be set

to deter"ine t#e o!ners#i$ of t#e $ro$erties in an intestate $roceedin*=

>eld: T#e *eneral rule is t#at t#e intestate court cannot #ear and $ass u$on Guestions of

o!ners#i$. However t#e intestate court "a& #ear and $ass u$on Guestions of o!ners#i$$roisionall& and !#en "erel& incidental if the urose is to determine whether or not a

roert! should "e included in the inventor! of the estate of the deceased.

But this case does not fall under the e#cetion$ thus the %&C acted with grave a"use

of discretion in ordering that a hearing "e set for determining the ownershi of the

roerties in 'uestion

&he facts of this case show that the inventort! is not disuted. n fact$ in reondent*s

Manifestation and +osition$ resondent e#ressl! adoted the inventor! reared

"! etitioner.



Note: Miguela’s recourse is to fle a separate action with a court o general jurisdiction. The

intestate court is not the appropriate orum or the resolution o her adverse claim o ownership

over properties ostensibly belonging to Miguelita's estate given that she had Torrens title over

such properties.

444. @2C>@AT2 Rule 91A. Conce$t

4t is an incident or attribute of soerei*nt& and rests on t#e $rinci$le of ulti"ate o!ners#i$ b& t#e

state of all $ro$ert& !it#in its urisdiction.

4t is a substantial ri*#t of t#e state and is not a clai" based on c#arit& *ratuit& or unearned

bene/t.

A. 8#en to /le

(1) Person dies intestateB(+) 2ei7ed of real $ro$ert& in t#e P#ili$$inesB and

() ;eaes no #eir or $erson b& la! entitled to t#e sa"e

<. ReGuisites for /lin* of $etition

(1) A $erson died intestate

(+) >e left no #eirs or $ersons b& la! entitled to t#e sa"e

() Deceased left $ro$erties

ote:

%ust be initiated b& t#e Hoern"ent t#rou*# t#e 2olicitor Heneral.

Fi6 a date and $lace for #earin* !#ic# s#all not be "ore t#an "ont#s after t#e entr& of t#e

order

Direct a co$& of t#e order to be $ublis#ed before t#e #earin* at least once a !ee for

successie !ees in a ne!s$a$er of *eneral circulation in t#e $roince

Court s#all adud*e.

<. Co"$are and contrast @sc#eats 2ettle"ent of estate

@sc#eats 2ettle"ent of estate1. Dies intestate 1. Dies testate or intestate+. ;eft no #eir +. ;eft an #eir

Case:

Re$ublic (re$resented b& Re*ister of Deeds) CA and A"ada 2olano (re$resented b& Ro"eo

2olano) HR 1'

FACT2:

1. A"ada 2olano is t#e #el$er of @li7abet# >anins for 0 &ears



+. A"ada !as #er constant co"$anion since no relatie is aailable to tend #er needs

. 4n reco*nition %s. >anins e6ecuted + deeds of donation inolin* + $arcels of land in faor of

A"ada. 2#e alle*edl& "is$laced t#e deeds and canIt be found

. Durin* t#e absence of t#e deed of donation Re$ublic /led a $etition for esc#eat of t#e estate

of >aninsB Ro"eo 2olano (s$ouse of A"ada) /led for interention but !as denied b& court

because Jt#e& "iserabl& failed to s#o! alid clai" or ri*#t to t#e $ro$erties in Guestion.J

5. 4t !as establis#ed t#at t#ere !ere no no!n #eirs and $ersons entitled to t#e $ro$erties t#e;o!er Court esc#eated t#e estate in faor of Re$ublic of t#e P#ili$$ines

. A"ada clai"ed s#e accidentall& found t#e deeds of donation.

. 2#e /led for $etition before CA for t#e annul"ent of t#e ;CIs decision esc#eatin* t#e $ro$ert&

in faor of t#e Re$ublic. 2#e inoes lac of urisdiction oer t#e subect "atter on t#e $art of

res$ondent RTC to entertain t#e esc#eat $roceedin*s because t#e $arcels of land #ae been

earlier donated $rior to t#e deat# of said >aninsB and t#erefore res$ondent court could not

#ae ordered t#e esc#eat of said $ro$erties in faor of t#e Re$ublic of t#e P#ili$$ines

'. CA annulled ;CIs decision

4223@: 8#et#er t#e lo!er court #ad urisdiction to declare a $arcel of land esc#eated in faor oft#e state

>@;D: K@2. 8e rule for t#e $etitioner. @sc#eat is a $roceedin* !#ereb& t#e state b& irtue of its

soerei*nt& ste$s in and clai"s t#e real or $ersonal $ro$ert& of a $erson !#o dies intestate

leain* no #eir.

2ince esc#eat is one of t#e incidents of soerei*nt& t#e state "a& and usuall& does $rescribe

t#e conditions and li"its t#e ti"e !it#in !#ic# a clai" to suc# $ro$ert& "a& be "ade.

4n t#is urisdiction a clai"ant to an esc#eated $ro$ert& "ust /le #is clai" "within fve (5)

years rom the date o such judgment, such person shall have possession o and title

to the same, or i sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him or the

proceeds, ater deducting the estate; but a claim not made shall be barred orever."

4n t#e instant $etition t#e esc#eat ud*"ent !as #anded do!n b& t#e lo!er court as earl& as +

-une 19'9 but it !as onl& on +' -anuar& 199 more or less seven (,) !ears after !#en

$riate res$ondent decided to contest t#e esc#eat ud*"ent in t#e *uise of a $etition for

annul"ent of ud*"ent before t#e Court of A$$eals.

8it# t#e la$se of t#e 5&ear$eriod t#erefore $riate res$ondent #as irretrieabl& lost #er ri*#t to

clai" and t#e su$$osed Jdiscoer& of t#e deeds of donationJ is not enou*# usti/cation to nullif&

t#e esc#eat ud*"ent !#ic# #as lon* attained /nalit&.

T#e Court of A$$eals t#erefore cannot $erfunctoril& $resu$$ose t#at t#e subect $ro$erties !ere

no lon*er $art of t#e decedentIs estate at t#e ti"e t#e lo!er court #anded do!n its decision ont#e stren*t# of a belated alle*ation t#at t#e sa"e #ad $reiousl& been dis$osed of b& t#e o!ner.

Documents

Specpro Distribution and Escheats