Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1.
FACTS:
The cases are consolidated.
for
(the
case
of
the
HELD:
1. The petition for liquidation under 29 of Rep. Act No. 265,
otherwise known as the Central Bank Act, is a special
proceeding.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
The act by which one seeks
to establish the status or right
of a party, or a particular fact.
2.
3.
b.
Issue:
WON the case of the declaration of presumptive death is a
special proceeding.
Ruling:
No. The case before the court is in the nature of a summary
proceeding. CA decision is reversed and remanded to trial
court.
>>>By the trial courts citation of Article 41 of the Family
Code, it is gathered that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc to
have her absent spouse declared presumptively dead had
for its purpose her desire to contract a valid subsequent
marriage. Ergo, the petition for that purpose is a summary
proceeding, following above-quoted Art. 41, paragraph 2 of
the Family Code.
Since Title XI of the Family Code, entitled SUMMARY
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN THE FAMILY LAW, contains
the following provision, inter alia:
xxx
x x x,
>>>>There is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria
Jomoc required, and is, therefore, a summary
proceeding under the Family Code, not a special
proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal for
which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being
a summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a Notice of
Appeal from the trial courts order sufficed.
On the procedural matter:
On the alleged procedural flaw in petitioners
petition before the appellate court. Petitioners failure to
attach to his petition before the appellate court a copy of the
trial courts order denying its motion for reconsideration of
the disapproval of its Notice of Appeal is not necessarily
fatal, for the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a
technical sense. Given the issue raised before it by
petitioner, what the appellate court should have done was to
direct petitioner to comply with the rule.
As for petitioners failure to submit copy of the trial courts
order granting the petition for declaration of presumptive
death, contrary to the appellate courts observation that
petitioner was also assailing it, petitioners 8-page petition
filed in said court does not so reflect, it merely having
assailed the order disapproving the Notice of Appeal.
SYLLABUS
1.
2.
(2)
No. Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is clear from
the term 'suit' that it refers to an action by one person or
persons against another or other in a court of justice in
which the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords
him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right,
whether at law or in equity. A civil action is thus an action
filed in a court of justice, whereby a party sues another for
the enforcement of a right, or the prevention or redress of a
wrong.
5.
BEATRIZ
DE
ZUZUARREGUI
VDA.
DE
REYES, petitioner
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PILAR IBAEZ
VDA. DE ZUZUARREGUI, Administratrix, ANTONIO DE
ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ENRIQUE DE ZUZUARREGUI and
PACITA JAVIER, respondents.
FACTS:
Parties/ Heirs:
Petitioner:
Beatriz de Zuzuarregui Vda. de
Reyes, illegitimate child of decedent;
Respondents: Pilar Ibaez Vda. de Zuzuarregui,
surviving spouse, and administratix;
Antonio
de
Zuzuarregui,
Jr.,
illegitimate child;
Enrique
de
illegitimate child; and
Zuzuarregui,
RULING:
Petitioners contentions are without merit.
There is, therefore, no reason to disturb, much less
to reverse, the factual finding of the lower court
that a typographical or clerical error was clearly
committed by inadvertence in the project of
partition.
6. Uriarte v. CFI
Vicente Uriarte filed an original petition for certiorari against
the respondents Juan Uriarte Zamacona, Higinio Uriarte,
and the Courts of First Instance of Negros Occidental and of
Manila, Branch IV praying:
annulling the orders of respondent Negros court
dismissing the first instituted SP No. 6344, and the
order
Manila
court
denying
petitioner's omnibus motion to intervene and
to dismiss the later-instituted Special Proceeding
No. 51396 (both special proceedings pertaining to
the settlement of the same estate of the same
deceased), and
consequently annulling all proceedings had in
Special Proceeding No. 51396, of the respondent
Manila court as all taken without jurisdiction.
Reasons in support of said petition are stated therein as
follows:
Negros court erred in dismissing its SP No. 6344,
and failing to declare itself 'the court first taking
cognizance of the settlement of the estate of' the
deceased Don Juan Uriarte y Goite as prescribed
in Rule 75 section 1 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent Manila court erred in failing to dismiss
its Special Proceeding No. 51396, supra,
notwithstanding proof of prior filing of Special
Proceeding No. 6344, supra, in the Negros court.
Petitioner filed a SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR
MANDAMUS annulling the orders issued by the Negros
Court on disapproving his record on appeal and denying his
motion for reconsideration, and praying to approve his
record on appeal and to give due course to his appeal.
Facts:
On November 6, 1961, petitioner Vicente Uriarte filed a
petition for the settlement of the estate(SP 6344) of Don
Juan Uriarte in the Negros Court, alleging that 1) he is the
natural son of Don Juan and the sole heir. 2) That during
the lifetime of Don Juan, petitioner had filed a petition, Civil
Case 6143, in the Negros Court to be acknowledged as his
natural child. (Intestate Proceeding)
BUENA, J.:
May a corporation, in its universality, be the proper subject
of and be included in the inventory of the estate of a
deceased person?
Petitioner disputes before us through the instant petition for
review on certiorari, the decision of the Court of Appeals
promulgated on 18 April 1996, in CA-GR SP No. 38617,
which nullified and set aside the 2 orders of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93, sitting as a probate
court.
Petitioner Rufina Luy Lim is the surviving spouse of the late
Pastor Y. Lim whose estate is the subject of probate
proceedings. Private respondents Auto Truck Corporation,
Alliance Marketing Corporation, Speed Distributing, Inc.,
Active Distributing, Inc. and Action Company are
corporations formed, organized and existing under
Philippine laws and which owned real properties covered
under the Torrens system.
Pastor Y. Lim died intestate. Herein petitioner, as surviving
spouse and duly represented by her nephew George Luy,
filed a joint petition for the administration of the estate of
Pastor Y. Lim before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City.
Private respondent corporations, whose properties were
included in the inventory of the estate of Pastor Y. Lim, then
filed a motion for the lifting of lis pendens and motion for
exclusion of certain properties from the estate of the
decedent.
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City sitting as a probate
court, granted the private respondents twin motions, in this
wise:
Subsequently, Rufina Luy Lim filed a verified amended
petition[9] which contained the following averments:
19
of
Batas
of interest, damages of
whatever
kind,
attorneys fees, litigation
expenses and costs,
the amount of which
must be specifically
alleged, Provided, that
interest, damages of
whatever
kind,
attorneys,
litigation
expenses and costs
shall be included in the
determination of the
filing fees, Provided
further, that where there
are several claims or
causes
of
actions
between the same or
different
parties,
embodied in the same
complaint, the amount
of the demand shall be
the totality of the claims
in all the causes of
action, irrespective of
whether the causes of
action arose out of the
same
or
different
transactions;
The Court cited many cases dri na part but the point sa
tanan cases kay kini lang:
10. EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-9282. May 31, 1956.]
EMILIO ADVINCULA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE
JUDGE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Negros Occidental, and ENRIQUE A.
LACSON, Respondents.
DECISION
CONCEPCION, J.:
Petitioner Emilio Advincula seeks a writ of certiorari, to
annul certain orders of the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental.
Said Petitioner was, on November 22, 1954,
appointed, special administrator of the estate of his
deceased wife, Josefa Lacson Advincula, in special
proceeding No. 3245 of said court. In due course, he was,
on February 12, 1955, appointed regular administrator of
said estate. After Advincula had qualified as such, the
brothers of the deceased, who left no issue, submitted to
10. When the matter was brought to the CA, The appellate
court upheld due process in the instant case and waiver of
venue.
11. Petitioner argues that there was improper venue,
insisting as a result, that the probate proceedings including
that taken by the Court of Appeals is null. Their failure to
object to the proceedings conducted at Pasay City Regional
Trial Court, should not be taken as a waiver on their part as
Ruling:
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, * PRECIOSA
B. GARCIA and AGUSTINA B. GARCIA, respondents.
FACTS:
Virginia G. Fule filed with the Court of First Instance of
Laguna, at Calamba, presided over by Judge Severo A.
Malvar, a petition for letters of administration and moved
ex parte for her appointment as special administratrix over
the estate of Amado G. Garcia.
Facts:
Issues:
1.
2.
Held:
1.
2.
FACTS:
Spouses Ismael Reyes and Felisa Revita Reyes are the
registered owners of parcels of land situated in Arayat
Street, Cubao, Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificates
of Title Nos. 4983 and 3598. The spouses have seven
children, namely: Oscar, Araceli, Herminia, Aurora,
Emmanuel, Cesar and Rodrigo, all surnamed Reyes.
In 1973, Ismael Reyes died intestate. Prior to his death,
Ismael Reyes was notified by the BIR of his income tax
deficiency which arose out of his sale of a parcel land
located in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. For failure to settle
his tax liability and since no payment was made by the
heirs, the property covered by TCT No. 4983 was levied,
sold and eventually forfeited.
Petitioners predecessor Oscar Reyes availed of the
BIRs tax amnesty and he was able to redeem the property
.
Later, the Office of the City Treasurer sent a notice to Felisa
Revita Reyes informing her that the Arayat properties will be
sold at public for her failure to settle the real estate tax
HELD: NO.
A probate court or one in charge of the proceedings whether
testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to
properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are
claimed to belong to others. The jurisdiction of the probate
court merely relates to matters having to do with the
settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of
deceased persons, and the appointment and removal of
administrators, executors, guardians and trustees.[18] The
question of ownership is as a rule, an extraneous matter
which the Probate Court cannot resolve with finality.[19]
Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain
property should or should not be included in the inventory of
estate proceeding, the probate court may pass upon the title
thereto, but such determination is provisional, not
conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate
action to resolve title
The general rule that question of title to property cannot be
passed upon in the probate court admits of exceptions, i.e.
if the claimant and all other parties having legal interest in
the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the
submission of the question to the probate court for
adjudication, such has no application in the instant case
since petitioner-appellee and oppositor-appellant are not the
only parties with legal interest in the subject property as
they are not the only heirs of the decedent; that it was never
shown that all parties interested in the subject property or all
the heirs of the decedent consented to the submission of
the question of ownership to the intestate court.
FACTS:
June 5, 1990 - PCIBank filed with the Regional Trial
Court, Davao City, Branch 11 a claim for payment of a loan
account against the decedent, Jesus T. Ang, Sr. (They
executed a surety agreement and real estate mortgage,
respectively, in favor of PCIBanks predecessor-in-interest
(Insular Bank of Asia and America) to secure a loan
extended by it to JA Enterprises)
1.
ISSUE:
2.
Furthermore,
contrary
to
petitioners
contention, the Rules of Court do not
require that issues be joined before
preliminary
injunction
may
issue.
Preliminary injunction may be granted at
any stage of an action or proceeding prior
to the judgment or final order, ordering a
party or a court, agency or a person to
refrain from a particular act or acts. For as
long as the requisites for its issuance are
present in the case, such issuance is valid.
3.
HELD:
No. (The petition lacks merit)
4.
FACTS
Petitioner
De
Leon
was
appointed
administratrix of the estate of Rafael Nicolas
(Sp. Proc. No. C-1679, In the Matter of the
Intestate Estate of Rafael C. Nicolas). Said
case was consolidated with Sp. Proc No. C1810.
Spouses Rafael and Salud Nicolas (both
deceased) are the parents of Teresita,
Estrelita, Antonio, Ramon and Roberto.
Antonio (deceased) is represented by his wife
petitioner Zenaida and his other heirs.
Private
respondent
Ramon
(oppositorapplicant in the intestate proceedings) filed a
Motion for Collation, claiming that Rafael,
during his lifetime had gratuitously given real
properties to his children and Teresita had
failed to include them in the estates inventory
(at least 7 lots in Polo, Bulacan and Caloocan
City given to different children).
The RTC issued an Order directed Ramon to
submit pertinent documents for proper
determination if the properties should be
collated. A hearing was set with notice to the
present registered owners (the children) to
show cause why their proeprties should not be
collated.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Nov. 11, 1994 Order
directing the inclusion of the enumerated
properties in the estate was final.
RULING
The Case:
Facts:
The records show that on 21 November 1988, a
certain Herminia R. Alvos, claiming to be a niece of Paz
Ramirez, surviving spouse of the late Ambrocio C. Pingco,
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela a petition
for settlement of the estate of Ambrocio C. Pingco.
Respondent Judge appointed said Herminia R. Alvos
special administratrix under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
Counsel for the special administratrix filed an
urgent motion stating that sometime in February 1978 two
(2) parcels of land belonging to the late Ambrocio C. Pingco
and his wife covered by TCT Nos. 7537 and 75101 had
been sold to complainants Jose P. Uy and Rizalina C. Uy
who registered the sale with the Register of Deeds of
Manila in February 1989. Consequently, counsel requested
the court to direct the Register of Deeds of Valenzuela to
"freeze any transaction without the signature of Herminia
Alvos" involving the properties covered by TCT Nos. B15345 to B-15352, B-15354 to B-15359, TCT Nos. T39565,
T-50276, T-52754, T-220168, TCT. Nos. T-7537 and 75101.
Respondent Judge granted the motion. The Register of
Deeds of Valenzuela reported to the court informing the
latter that a deed of absolute sale executed by the spouses
RULING:
RATIO:
General Rule:
The long standing rule is that probate courts, or those in
charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate, cannot
adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part
of the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside
parties.[6] Stated otherwise, "claims for title to, or right of
possession of, personal or real property, made by the heirs
themselves, by title adverse to that of the deceased, or
made by third persons, cannot be entertained by the
(probate) court.
Exception:
When the parties are all heirs of the decedent, it is optional
upon them to submit to the probate court the question of
title to property.
FACTS:
Herein petitioner Menandro A. Reselva, private respondent
(petitioner in this petition) Milagros R. Cortes, and Florante
Reselva are brothers and sister and children - heirs of the
late spouses Teodoro T. Reselva and Lucrecia Aguirre
Reselva. During their lifetime, they acquired a property
The better practice, however, for the heir who has not
received his share, is to demand his share through a proper
motion in the same probate or administration proceedings,
or for reopening of the probate or administrative
proceedings if it had already been closed, and not through
an independent action, which would be tried by another
court or Judge which may thus reverse a decision or order
of the probate or intestate court already final and executed
and re-shuffle properties long ago distributed and disposed
of.
2.
.
They alleged therein that they acquired ownership of the
three (3) parcels of land mentioned in the complaint, which
are in the possession of Soledad Montanano, and the other
parcels of land mentioned in their counterclaim, which are in
the possession of plaintiff-appellant, by virtue of a
donation mortis causa executed by Isidra Montanano on
November 22, 1938 or by a donation executed by her on
December 20, 1940 which was confirmed by Edilberto Vita.
They pray that these parcels of land be adjudicated to them
in the manner set forth in their counterclaim; that plaintiffappellant be ordered to account for the harvests from these
parcels of land from the time he took possession; and that
they be awarded damages corresponding to their litigation
expenses.
In his reply dated July 4, 1967, plaintiff-appellant denied all
the allegations contained in the answer-in-intervention and
reiterated that there was no such donation executed by
Isidra Montanano. If such donation were really executed,
she was forced to do so at a time when she was not
mentally in a position to execute and sign freely said
document.
On September 15, 1973, the trial court rendered judgment
adverse to all parties, the dispositive portion of which reads
(p. 52, Record on Appeal):
Considering that the plaintiff has not shown by
preponderating evidence that the three (3) parcels