Ordinary Civil Action Special Civil Action
As to Nature
Generally adversarial; there are Some are adversarial while others are
definite parties—plaintiff v. defendant. merely remedial in nature like
interpleader.
As to Purpose
One by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right,
or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
As to Governing Rules
Governed by the rules for ordinary Governed primarily by ordinary rules,
civil actions. but subject to specific rules.
As to Applicability of Pleadings
Parties are generally allowed to file an Like in ordinary civil action, law on
answer, counterclaim, cross-claim, and pleadings are generally applicable
third-party complaint. subject only to specific rules
prescribed.
As to Parties Involved
Involves two or more parties Involves two or more parties
As to How Initiated
Initiated by complaint Some are initiated by complaint,
others by petition
As to Appeal
The period to appeal is only 15 days Appeal is through record on appeal
and notice of appeal suffices. (like in partition, expropriation, the
Record on appeal can be filed as well. period of which is 30 days.
As to the Cause of Action
Based on a cause of action. Some special actions have no cause of
action.
Special Proceeding
Generally non-adversarial because it is
directed against the whole world, as
majority of special proceedings are in
rem.
Remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact.
Governed by special rules; ordinary
rules apply as far as practicable.
Law on pleadings generally is not
applicable.
May involve only one party
Initiated by petition.
The period to appeal is 30 days and
aside from notice of appeal, a record
on appeal is required.
Not based on a cause of action (except
Habeas Corpus)
 Extrajudicial Settlement (Sec 1, Rule 74) Summary Settlement (Sec 2, Rule 74)
As to necessity of court intervention
No court intervention required Judicial adjudication, although in a summary
proceeding
As to the value of the estate
Value of estate is immaterial Gross value of the estate must not exceed PhP
10,000
As to scope
Allowed only in intestate succession Allowed in both testate and intestate succession.
As to applicability vis-à-vis the existence of debts
There must be no outstanding debts of the estate at Available even if there are debts; it is the court that
the time of settlement. will make provision for payment.
As to who may institute
Resorted at the instance of and by agreement of all May be instituted by any interested party—even by
heirs a creditor of the estate—without the consent of all
heirs
As to amount of bond
Equal to the value of personal property To be determined by the court
As to where to file bond
Register of Deeds Filed with the court
CASES
Rizalina Gemina, et al. v. Juanito Eugenio, et al.; G.R. No. 215802, October 19, 2016
Doctrine/Rule: This case illustrates the requirement of a special proceeding for the declaration of
heirship.
Nature: This is a petition for review on Certiorari assails the CA decision which affirmed RTC decision in
a case for annulment of instrument.
Facts: Spouses Candido Eugenio and Fernanda Geronimo (“Spouses Eugenio”) were the registered
owners of a parcel of land (“subject property”) in Laoag City. Petitioners are the grandchildren of Spouses
Eugenio. Rizalina learned that the subject property was sold by a certain Francisco Eugenio to
respondent Spouses Laurel and Zenaida Mariano (“Spouses Mariano”). Petitioners then called the
attention of Spouses Mariano regarding the subject property but to no avail. Petitioners, through Candido
Gemina, Jr. filed a complaint to annul the sale of the subject property.
The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioners were not real parties in
interest. It noted that from the allegations in the complaint, the right that the petitioners sought to
protect or enforce was that of an heir. Thus, it held that there was a need to establish their status as heirs
in a special proceeding for that purpose before they could institute an ordinary civil action to enforce
their rights in the subject property and to have legal personality to seek the nullity of the instruments
which affected their rights in the said property.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling upon appeal. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Must the petitioners institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs of Spouses
Eugenio before they could file an ordinary action for annulment of instrument?
Held: Yes, petitioners must institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs of Spouses
Eugenio before they could file an ordinary action for annulment of instrument.
In cases wherein the alleged heirs of a decedent, in whose name a property was registered, sue to
recover the said property through the institution of an ordinary civil action, such as a complaint for
reconveyance and partition or nullification of transfer certificate of titles and other deeds or documents
related thereto, the Court has consistently ruled that a declaration of heirship is improper in an ordinary
civil action because the matter is within the exclusive competence of the court in a special proceeding.
In the case at bench, while the complaint was denominated as an action for annulment of
instrument, a review of the allegations therein reveals that the right being asserted by the petitioners is
their right as heirs of Spouses Eugenio. The petitioners, however, have yet to substitute their claim as the
legal heirs of Spouses Eugenio who are, thus, entitled to the subject property. Neither is there anything in
the records of this case which would show that a special proceeding had been instituted to have
themselves declared as heirs of Spouses Eugenio.
Thus, there is a need to establish their status as such heirs in the proper forum.
Lolita Bas Capablanca v. Heirs of Pedro Bas; G.R. No. 224144, June 28, 2017
Doctrine/Rule: No need for a separate proceeding for declaration of heirship in order to resolve
petitioner’s action for cancellation of title.
Nature: This is a petition for review assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals, 19th Division, of Cebu
City. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and dismissed the petitioner’s complaint.
Facts: Andres and Pedro Bas acquired Lot No. 2535, a 6120 sqm lot. Pedro sold to Faustina Manreal his
portion of the lot as evidenced by a notarized deed of sale. After the death of Faustina and her husband,
their heirs executed a notarized Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Absolute Sale where said
lot was conveyed to one of their heirs, Alejandra Balorio. Balorio sold the land to Edith Deen, who in turn
sold it to Atty. Eddy Deen. Upon Atty. Deen’s death, an extra-judicial settlement of estate, which did not
include subject lot, was executed by his heirs. Later, they sold the land to Norberto Bas who took
possession of and built a house on it. When Norberto died without a will, he was succeeded by his niece
and only heir, Lolita Capablanca.
Josefina Espinosa, representative of Heirs of Pedro Bas, filed a complaint for Clarification of
Ownership of Lot No. 2535 against Lolita before the Lupong Tagapamayapa but it was not resolved. Then,
a notarized Partition Agreement of Real Property, Quitclaim, and Waiver of Rights were executed between
the heirs of Andres Bas and Lolita whereby they partitioned Lot 2535 among themselves. Lolita learned
that the TCT in favor of Andres and Pedro Bas has been cancelled and a new one was issued in the name
of the Heirs of Pedro Bas. Lolita filed for the cancellation of titles thereof.
Heirs of Pedro Bas claim that the sale between Pedro and Faustina was fake since Pedro, being
illiterate, could not have affixed his signature thereon. RTC and CA upheld the sale made by Pedro to
Faustino; however, CA reversed RTC’s decision and ruled that Lolita must first be declared as the sole
heir to the estate of Norberto in a proper special proceeding.
Issue: Should Lolita be declared first as the sole heir to the estate of Norberto in a proper special
proceeding to resolve her action for cancellation of titles of the property?
Held: No, there is no need for a separate proceeding for a declaration of heirship in order to resolve
petitioner’s action for cancellation of titles of property.
In this case, the main issue is the annulment of title to property, which ultimately hinges on the
validity of the sale from Pedro to Faustina. Petitioner Lolita does not claim any filiation with Pedro or
seek to establish her right as his heir as against respondents. Rather, she seeks to enforce her right over
the property which has been allegedly violated by the fraudulent acts of respondents.
In this case, there is no necessity for a separate special proceeding, and to require it would be
superfluous considering that petitioner had already presented evidence to establish her filiation and
heirship to Norberto, which respondents never disputed. Moreover, to dismiss the case and require
petitioner to institute a special proceeding to determine her status as heir of the late Norberto would
hamper, instead of serve, justice.
Sps. Maria Butiong and Francisco Villafria, substituted by Dr. Ruel B. Villafria v. Ma. Gracia Riñoza
Plazo and Ma. Fe Riñoza Alaras; G.R. No. 187524, August 5, 2015
Doctrine/Rule: When partition is available, heirs need not be compelled to submit to administration
proceedings to dispense with the risks of delay. (Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons)
Nature: This case is a petition for review on Certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision and
Resolution of the CA, which affirmed the Judgment of the RTC, nullifying the extra-judicial settlement, and
deed of absolute sale, and forfeiting all improvements introduced into the properties in question.
Facts: The late Pedro Riñoza died intestate leaving several heirs, including children with his first wife,
herein respondents. Among the properties left were the resort and family home situated in Nasugbu,
Batangas.
In their Amended Complaint for Judicial Partition with Annulment of Title and Recovery of
Possession, respondents alleged that they discovered that their co-heirs, Pedro’s second wife and other
children, had sold the subject properties to petitioners, spouses Butiong, who are now deceased and were
substituted by their son, Dr. Ruel Villafria, without their knowledge and consent.
The trial court nullified the transfer of the subject properties to petitioners and spouses Butiong due
to irregularities in the documents of conveyance offered by petitioners, as well as the circumstances
surrounding the execution of the same. Specifically, the Extra-Judicial Settlement was notarized by a
notary public who was not duly commissioned as such on the date it was executed.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The RTC issued a Partial Writ of Execution,
compelling the petitioner to file a Petition for Annulment of Judgment and Order before the CA on the
grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. However, the CA dismissed the petition.
 Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari invoking, among all others, that the CA
committed reversible error in not ruling that the RTC acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the
special proceeding for the settlement of estate of Riñoza and the civil action for Annulment of title of the
heirs and 3rd persons in one proceeding.
Issue: Whether or not the court a quo acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the action of settlement
of estate and annulment of title.
Held: No, the court acted with jurisdiction.
The general rule is that when a person dies intestate, or, if testate, failed to name an executor in his
will or the executor so named is incompetent, or refuses the trust, or fails to furnish the bond required by
the Rules of Court, then the decedent’s estate shall be judicially administered and the competent court
shall appoint a qualified administrator in the order established in Sec 6 of Rule 78. An exception to this
rule, however, is found in the Sec 1 of Rule 74 wherein the heirs of a decedent, who left no will and no
debts due from his estate, may divide the estate either extrajudicially or in an ordinary action for
partition without submitting the same for judicial administration nor applying for the appointment of an
administrator by the court.
In this case, it was expressly alleged in the complaint, and was not disputed, that Pedro died without
a will, leaving his estate without any pending obligations. A complete reading of the complaint would
readily show that, based on the nature of the suit, the allegations therein, and the reliefs prayed for the
action is clearly one for judicial partition with annulment of title and recovery of possession.
Respondents committed no error in filing an action for judicial partition instead of a special
proceeding for the settlement of estate as the same is expressly permitted by law. That the complaint
contained allegations inherent in an action for settlement of estate does not mean that there was a
prohibited joinder of causes of action for questions as to the estate’s properties as well as a
determination of the heir, their status as such, and the nature and extent of their titles to the estate, may
also be properly ventilated in partition proceedings alone.
Therefore, the court a quo acted with jurisdiction in entertaining the action for settlement of estate
and annulment of title.

Iris Morales Olondriz v. Ana Maria Olondriz, et al.; G.R. No. 198994, February 3, 2016
Doctrine/Rule: When practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed
upon even before it is probated, the probate court should meet the issue.
Facts: Alfonso Juan Olondriz Sr. died in June 2003. He was survived by his widow, Ana Maria, and his
children. Believing that the decedent died intestate, the respondent heirs filed for the partition of the
decedent’s estate and the appointment of a special administrator. The RTC appointed Alfonso Juan
Olondriz Jr. as special administrator. However, Iris Morales Olondriz filed a separate petition with the
RTC alleging that the decedent left a will dated July 23, 1991. Iris prayed for the probate of the will and
for her appointment as special administratrix. The will omitted Francisco, and illegitimate son of the
decedent. The RTC suspended the intestate proceedings and set the case for the probate. The RTC
reasoned that probate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceeding. The respondent heirs
moved for reconsideration of the suspension order but the RTC denied the motion. The RTC observed: (1)
that Iris expressly admitted that Francisco is an heir of the decedent; (2) that Francisco was clearly
omitted from the will; and (3) that based on the evidentiary hearings, Francisco was clearly preterited.
Iris moved for reconsideration which the RTC denied for lack of merit. On appeal, the CA dismissed Iris’
petition, holding that while probate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings, the
preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line annuls the institution of heirs in the will and opens the
entire inheritance into intestate succession.
Issues: Whether or not the court can pass upon the intrinsic validity of a will.
Held: Yes, the court, in the interest of justice, should indeed decide upon the intrinsic validity of a will in
such a case as this, where the decedent’s will does not contain specific legacies or devices; moreover,
Francisco’s preterition annulled the institution of heirs. The annulment effectively caused the total
abrogation of the will, resulting in intestacy of the inheritance. It is not beyond the probate court’s
jurisdiction to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will when so warranted by exceptional
circumstances. When practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed
upon even before it is probated, the probate court should meet the issue. The decedent’s will, no matter
how valid it may appear intrinsically, is null and void. The conduct of separate proceedings to determine
the intrinsic validity of its testamentary provisions would be superfluous. Thus, error cannot be
attributed—much less grave abuse of discretion—on the RTC for ordering the case to proceed intestate.
Avelina Rebusquillo (substituted by her heirs, except Emelinda Gualvez) and Salvador Orosco v.
Sps. Domingo and Emelinda Gualvez and the City Assessor of Legazpi City; G.R. No. 204029, June 4,
2014
Doctrine/Rule: Recourse to administration proceedings to determine who the heirs are is sanctioned
only if there is a good and compelling reason for such recourse.
Nature: Petition for review on Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the CA, which reversed
and set aside the Decision of the RTC annulling the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and Deed of Absolute Sale
covering the property of decedent Eulalio Abarientos.
Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment and revocation of an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
(2001) and Deed of Absolute Sale (2002) before the RTC. Petitioner Avelina was supposedly made to sign
two documents by her daughter Emelinda and her son-in-law on the pretext that the documents were
needed to facilitate the titling of the lot. It was only in 2003, so petitioners claim, that Avelina realized
that what she signed was an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
respondents.
After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision annulling the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and the Deed of
Absolute Sale executed by Avelina on the ground that (1) with regard to the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication,
she was not the sole heir of her parents and was not therefore solely entitled to their estate; and (2) in
the case of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Avelina did not really intend to sell her share in the property as it
was only executed to facilitate the titling of such property. Aggrieved, respondents now contend that
issues on heirship must be made in administration or intestate proceedings, not in an ordinary civil
action.
Issue: Whether or not RTC erred in annulling the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication simply on petitioners’
allegation of the existence of the heirs of Eulalio, considering that issues on heirship must be made in
administration or intestate proceedings, not in an ordinary civil action.
Held: No, the RTC is correct in granting Avelina’s prayer to annul the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, even
though a declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding. The Court had held that recourse
to administration proceedings to determine who the heirs are is sanctioned only if there is a good and
compelling reason for such recourse. Hence, the Court has allowed exceptions to the rule as when the
parties in the civil case already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had
consequently rendered judgment upon the issues it defined during the pre-trial.
There appears to be only one parcel of land being claimed by the contending parties as the
inheritance from Eulalio. It would be more practical to dispense with a special proceeding for the
determination of the status of petitioner Avelina as the sole heir of Eulalio. In light of the admission of
respondent spouses Gualvez that they knew for a fact that petitioner Avelina was not the sole heir of
Eulalio and that petitioner Salvador was one of the other living heirs with rights over the subject land, it
is with more reason that a resort to special proceeding will be but an unnecessary superfluity.
Accordingly, the court a quo had properly rendered judgment on the validity of the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication executed by Avelina.