Yaptinchay, The Supreme Court in This Case Ruled

G.R. No. 155555.
August 16, 2005 After trial, the trial court dismissed the case for
ISABEL P. PORTUGAL and JOSE DOUGLAS lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction
PORTUGAL JR., Petitioners, vs. without resolving the issues as stated in the pre-
LEONILA PORTUGAL-BELTRAN, Respondent trial order, on the ground that petitioner’s status
and right as putative heirs had not been
Facts: established before a probate court.
Jose Portugal (Portugal, Sr.) contracted two
marriages. Citing the case of Heirs of Guido and Isabel
Yaptinchay, the Supreme Court in this case ruled
The first marriage is with Paz Lazo in 1942 whom that the establishment of a status, a right, or a
he had a daughter named Leonila Perpetua Aleli particular fact is remedied through a special
Portugal (April 1950), the herein respondent, and proceeding, not an ordinary civil action. Thus,
the second marriage is with Isabel de la Puerta in the court, not being a probate court, is without
1948, who gave birth to a boy named Jose jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff’s cause to
Douglas Portugal, Jr. (Sept. 1949), the petitioners establish their status and right herein.
herein.
On appeal to CA, the petitioners cite the case of
By virtue of a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Carino vs. Carino. In this case, the SC
Waiver of Rights executed by Portugal Sr. and his ratiocinates that the court may pass upon the
4 siblings, over the estate of their father, a parcel validity of marriage even after the death of the
of land n Caloocan was issued a TCT in the name parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly
of “Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C. Lazo”. instituted to question the validity of said marriage,
so long as it is essential to the determination of
Paz died in 1984, while Portugal Sr. died intestate the case.
in 1985.
However, the CA found Carino to be inapplicable.
In 1988, Leonila executed an “Affidavit of The appellate court held that in Carino case, the
Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of main issue was the validity of the two marriages,
Deceased Person”, adjudicating to herself the whereas in the instant case, the main issue is the
Caloocan parcel of land, and was subsequently annulment of title to property. Thus, the CA
registered (1988) in her name “Leonila Portugal affirmed the TC’s dismissal of the case.
Beltran, married to Merardo M. Beltran, Jr.”
Hence, the present petition.
In 1996, Isabel and Portugal, Jr. (petitioners) filed
a complaint against Leonila for cancellation of Issue:
Affidavit of Adjudication and TCT issued in her Whether or not the petitioners have to institute a
name, alleging that Leonila is not related special proceeding to determine their status as
whatsoever to the deceased Portugal, Sr., hence, heirs before they can pursue the case for
not entitled to inherit the Caloocan parcel of land, annulment of respondent’s Affidavit of
and accordingly prayed that said TCT be Adjudication and of the TCT issued in her name.
cancelled and a new one be issued in their
(petitioner’s) name. Ruling: NO.
In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or
A Pre-Trial Order was issued, citing the following wrongly that she was the sole heir to Portugal’s
issues to be resolved, to wit: estate, executed on February 15, 1988 the
questioned Affidavit of Adjudication under the
a. Which of the two (2) marriages contracted by second sentence of Rule 74, Section 1 of the
the deceased Jose Q. Portugal Sr., is valid? Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an
b. Which of the plaintiff . . . Jose Portugal Jr. and exception to the general rule that when a
defendant Leonila P. Beltran is the legal person dies leaving a property, it should be
heir of the deceased Jose Q. Portugal Sr.? judicially administered and the competent court
c. Whether or not TCT No. 159813 was issued should appoint a qualified administrator, in the
in due course and can still be contested by order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in case the
plaintiffs. deceased left no will, or in case he did, he failed
d. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their to name an executor therein.
claims under the complaint. (Underscoring
supplied) Petitioners claim, however, to be the exclusive
heirs of Portugal. A probate or intestate court, no
Special Proceedings Digests – Rule 72 & 73 1

doubt, has jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs
of a deceased.
It appearing, however, that in the present case

the only property of the intestate estate of
Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still
subject it, under the circumstances of the
case, to a special proceeding which could be
long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish
the status of petitioners as heirs is not only
impractical; it is burdensome to the estate
with the costs and expenses of an
administration proceeding. And it is
superfluous in light of the fact that the parties
to the civil case – subject of the present case,
could and had already in fact presented
evidence before the trial court which assumed
jurisdiction over the case upon the issues it
defined during pre-trial.
In fine, under the circumstances of the present

case, there being no compelling reason to still
subject Portugal’s estate to administration
proceedings since a determination of
petitioners’ status as heirs could be achieved
in the civil case filed by petitioners, the trial
court should proceed to evaluate the evidence
presented by the parties during the trial and
render a decision thereon upon the issues it
defined during pre-trial, which bear repeating, to
wit:
1. Which of the two (2) marriages contracted by

the deceased Jose Q. Portugal, is valid;
2. Which of the plaintiff, Jose Portugal Jr. and
defendant Leonila P. Beltran is the legal heir
of the deceased Jose Q. Portugal (Sr.);
3. Whether or not TCT No. 159813 was issued
in due course and can still be contested by
plaintiffs;
4. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their
claim under the complaint.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.

The assailed September 24, 2002 Decision of the
Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE.
Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the

trial court, Branch 124 of the Regional Trial Court
of Caloocan City, for it to evaluate the evidence
presented by the parties and render a decision on
the above-enumerated issues defined during the
pre-trial. No costs. SO ORDERED.
Special Proceedings Digests – Rule 72 & 73 2

Yaptinchay, The Supreme Court in This Case Ruled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yaptinchay, The Supreme Court in This Case Ruled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yaptinchay, The Supreme Court in This Case Ruled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 155555.

Special Proceedings Digests – Rule 72 & 73 1

It appearing, however, that in the present case

In fine, under the circumstances of the present

1. Which of the two (2) marriages contracted by

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.

Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the

Special Proceedings Digests – Rule 72 & 73 2

You might also like