SPECPRO 3D- 2012

RULE 91

1. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA V. COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE

FACTS: The Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna filed in the CFI a petition claiming the
Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan by the right of Escheat. Colegio de San Jose,
claiming to be the exclusive owner of the said hacienda, assailed the petition upon
the grounds that the petition does not allege sufficient facts to entitle the applicants
to the remedy prayed for. Carlos Young, claiming to be a lessee of the hacienda
under a contract legally entered with Coelegio de San Jose, also intervened in the
case. Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna objected to the appearance and
intervention of CdSJ and Carlos Young but such objection was overruled.
Furthermore the lower court dismissed the petition filed for by Municipal Council of
San Pedro.

ISSUE: W/N the petition for escheats should be dismissed?

RULING: YES. According to Sec. 750 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now Sec 1 of
Rule 91), the essential facts which should be alleged in the petition, which are
jurisdictional because they confer jurisdiction upon the CFI are:
1. That a person died intestate or without leaving any will,
2. That he has left real or personal property and he was the owner thereof,
3. That he has not left any heir or person by law entitled to the property, and
4. That the one who applies for the escheat is the municipality where
deceased has his last residence or in case he should have no residence in the
country, the municipality where the property is situated.

Sec. 751 (now Sec 3 of Rule 91) provides that after the publications and trial,
if the court finds that the deceased is in fact the owner of real and personal
property situated in the country and has not left any heir or other person entitled
there to, it may order, after payment of debts and other legal expenses, the escheat
and in such case, it shall adjudicate the personal property to the municipality where
the deceased had his last residence and the real property to the municipality/ies
where they are situated.
Escheat is a proceeding whereby the real and personal property of a
deceased person become the property of the State upon his death without leaving
any will or legal heirs. It is not an ordinary action but a special proceeding. The
proceeding should be commenced by a petition and not by a complaint.
In a special proceeding for Escheat under section 750to 752 (now sec 1 to 3
of Rule 91), the petitioner is not the sole and exclusive interested party. Any person
alleging to have a direct right or Interest in the property sought to be escheated is
likewise an interested and necessary party and may appear and oppose the petition
for escheat.
When a petition for escheat does not state facts which entitle the petitioner
to the remedy prayed for and even admitting them hypothetically, it is clear that
there is no ground for the court to proceed to the Inquisition provided by law, an
interested party should not be disallowed from filing a motion to dismiss the petition
which is untenable from all standpoint. And when the motion to dismiss is
entertained upon this ground the petition may be dismissed unconditionally.

1
ANTONIO | ARRIOLA | BLEZA | CRISOLOGO | CURAMMENG | DIALINO | DOCENA | ESCUETA | FRANCISCO
| IMPERIAL | JULARBAL | PICHAY | PLAZO | ROJO | SIA
SPECPRO 3D- 2012

In this case, Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young had a right to intervene as
an alleged exclusive owner and a lessee of the property respectively.
The Municipal base its right to escheat on the fact that the Hacienda de San
Pedro Tunasan, temporal property of the Father of the Society of Jesus, were
confiscated by the order of the King of Spain. From the moment it was confiscated,
it became the property of the commonwealth of the Philippines. Given this fact, it is
evident that the Municipality cannot claim that the same be escheated to them,
because it is no longer the case of real property owned by a deceased person who
has not left any person which may legally claim it (2 nd requirement lacking).

2. REPUBLIC V IAC

Facts: The property in dispute is a land found in Zamboanga, registered in the name
of Kantiro Koyama, a Japanese national, who has not been heard since the end of
WWII. Under Sec 3 of Property Act of 1946 enacted by the American Congress, it
states that all properties in the name of US to which was previously owned by an
enemy national will be transferred in the name of the Philippines. Such transfer with
the land in dispute was never done. The government filed an escheat proceedings
to acquire such property. The CFI and IAC both granted the property with the City of
Zamboanga ruling under Rule 91.

Issue: Whether or not the property may be escheated

Ruling: No. The property in dispute falls under the Property of Act of 1946, which
transfers the property in the name of the national government. Such property, even
though not transferred by name, cannot be escheated, since its already owned by
the national government. Rules 91 will cannot be used to escheat such property.

3. TAN V CITY OF DAVAO

FACTS: The spouses Cornelia Pizarro and Baltazar Garcia adopted Dominga Garcia.
Dominga Garcia married a Chinaman, Tan Seng with whom she had three children:
Vicenta, Mariano and Luis. In 1923, Dominga Garcia and her family emigrated to
China.

According to the petitioner, Dominga Garcia died intestate and left in the Philippines
a parcel of land in Davao. Since her departure for China with her family, neither she,
nor her husband, nor any of their children has returned to the Philippines to claim
the lot.

Dominga's adoptive parent, Cornelia Pizarro died. Her nephew, Ramon Pizarro,
occupied a part of Dominga's property and collected the rentals. Another nephew of
Cornelia, Segundo Reyes, informed the Solicitor General about the property. The
City of Davao filed a petition with the CFI, to declare Dominga Garcia's land
escheated in its favor. It alleged that Dominga Garcia and her children are
presumed to be dead and since Dominga Garcia left no heir or person by law
entitled to inherit her estate, the same should be escheated.

Ramon Pizarro opposed the escheat petition on the ground that courts are not
authorized to declare that a person is presumed to be dead and that Dominga

2
ANTONIO | ARRIOLA | BLEZA | CRISOLOGO | CURAMMENG | DIALINO | DOCENA | ESCUETA | FRANCISCO
| IMPERIAL | JULARBAL | PICHAY | PLAZO | ROJO | SIA
SPECPRO 3D- 2012

Garcia's being in Red China is not a sufficient ground to deprive her of her property
by escheat proceedings. Pizarro alleges that Dominga's daughter, Vicenta Tan, is
alive in China or in Hongkong. Pizarro tried to prove it through: (1) supposed
pictures of the missing heir (2) an Extrajudicial Settlement and Adjudication of
Dominga's Estate allegedly executed by Vicenta in Hongkong; and (3) a Special
Power of Attorney in favor of Pizarro.
The trial court found that Pizarro's testimonies "ring with untruthfulness; they are
replete with inconsistencies" and the witnesses who corroborated him were
"unworthy of belief. Trial court rendered judgment declaring that the land
escheated and assigned to the City of Davao.

ISSUE: w/n the city of Davao had personality to file the escheat petition. YES
w/n trial court erred in declaring Vicenta Tan presumed dead. NO

With respect to the argument that only the Republic of the Philippines, represented
by the Solicitor-General, may file the escheat petition under Section 1, Rule 91 of
the Revised (1964) Rules of Court, the CA correctly ruled that the case did not come
under Rule 91 because the petition was filed on September 12,1962, when the
applicable rule was still Rule 92 of the 1940 Rules of Court. Rule 91 of the Revised
Rules of Court, which provides that only the Republic of the Philippines, through the
Solicitor General, may commence escheat proceedings, did not take effect until
January 1, 1964. Although the escheat proceedings were still pending then, the
Revised Rules of Court could not be applied to the petition because to do so would
work injustice to the City of Davao.

The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the trial court's ruling that Dominga
Garcia and her heirs may be presumed dead in the escheat proceedings as they are,
in effect, proceedings to settle her estate. Indeed, while a petition instituted for the
sole purpose of securing a judicial declaration that a person is presumptively dead
cannot be entertained if that were the only question or matter involved in the case,
the courts are not barred from declaring an absentee presumptively dead as an
incident of, or in connection with, an action or proceeding for the settlement of the
intestate estate of such absentee.

4. BERMUDO V. CA

5. REPUBLIC V CFI MANILA BRANCH XIII | FERNAN

FACTS
Under Act No. 3936 or the Unclaimed Balance Law several banks forwarded to
the Treasurer of the Philippines statements under oath of their officers all
deposits held by them in favor, or in the names of such depositors or creditors
known to be dead, or who have not been heard from, or who have not made
further deposits or withdrawals for the preceding ten years. Pres. Roxas Rural
Bank (priv. respondent) submitted two names Ydirin and Trumpeta with balances
of P126.54 and P62.91 respectively.
After 3 successive weeks of publication in two newspapers escheat proceedings
were filed against 31 banks including respondent bank and the depositors and/or
creditors.

3
ANTONIO | ARRIOLA | BLEZA | CRISOLOGO | CURAMMENG | DIALINO | DOCENA | ESCUETA | FRANCISCO
| IMPERIAL | JULARBAL | PICHAY | PLAZO | ROJO | SIA
SPECPRO 3D- 2012

Bank filed a motion to dismiss complaint against it because of improper venue.

Dismissed, certiorari was filed in behalf of Republic assailing orders of TC.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS
W/N Bank is a real party in interest in the escheat proceedings or in
Civil Case No. 73707 (RP v Bank of America et al which included Pres.
Roxas)?
Venue in Civ. Case 73707 is properly laid in Manila, since all banks
wherever they are can be included in one action pursuant to Act No.
3936
An RoC provision (old one) governs escheat proceedings

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

YES.
Real party in interest is defined as the party who would be benefited or injured
by the judgment of the suit or the party entitled to avail of the suit. Private
respondent bank falls under this definition for the escheat of dormant deposits in
favor of the government would deprive the bank of such deposits.
Sec. 3 of the said law provides that bank shall be joined as parties along with
creditors or depositors.
Under RoC, private respondent bank is a real party in interest, presence in action
is necessary for a complete determination and settlement of the questions
involved. It can and may file a motion to dismiss.
The lumping together of actions and parties was meant to save time and costs
but not to authorize the lumping together of all banks in the Philippines in one
action in Manila.
RoC section quoted refers to personal actions. Escheat proceedings are actions
in rem, must be brought in the province or city where the rem is located.
Petition denied

4
ANTONIO | ARRIOLA | BLEZA | CRISOLOGO | CURAMMENG | DIALINO | DOCENA | ESCUETA | FRANCISCO
| IMPERIAL | JULARBAL | PICHAY | PLAZO | ROJO | SIA