PORTUGAL v.

PORTUGAL-BELTRAN ● Petitioners filed a complaint for annultment of the Affidavit of

Jurisdiction |August 16, 2005 | Carpio Morales, J. Adjudication alleging that she is not related whatsoever to the deceased
Portugal, hence, not entitled to inherit the parcel of land.
● RTC dismissed on the ground that Puerta and Portugal Jr.‘s status amd
SUMMARY: Petitioners, second wife and son of the deceased, filed an action
right as putative heirs had not been established before a probate court,
to annul the “Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased
and lack of jurisdiction over the case. CA affirmed.
Person” executed by respondent Leonila, daughter from first marriage, and to
declare as void the TCT issued in her favor. SC dismissed the case because of
ISSUES/RATIO: WON petitioners have to institute a special proceeding to
the following circumstances—1. The subject parcel of land in Caloocan is all
determine their status as heirs before they can pursue the case for annulment
that comprises the estate of the deceased, thus it would be impractical, not
of respondent's Affidavit of Adjudication and of the TCT issued in her
expeditious and costly, to still require it to undergo special proceedings. 2. The
name.—NO
parties could and have already presented evidence to prove heirship in the
● The common doctrine in Litam, Solivio and Guilas in which the adverse
lower court, the latter assuming jurisdiction over the issues it defined during
parties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to the
pre-trial.
special proceedings for its settlement is that if the special proceedings
DOCTRINE: Where the adverse parties are putative heirs to the estate of
are pending, or if there are no special proceedings filed but there is,
a decedent or parties to the special proceedings for its settlement: 1.) if the
under the circumstances of the case, a need to file one, then the
special proceedings are pending, or 2.) if there are none but under the
determination of, among other issues, heirship should be raised and
circumstances of the case, there is a need to file one, then the determination
settled in said special proceedings.
of, among other issues, heirship, should be raised and settled in said special
● Petitioners presented a Marriage Contract, a Certificate of Live Birth,
proceeding.
pictures and testimonial evidence to establish their right as heirs of the
Where the 1.) SP had been instituted but had finally closed and terminated,
decedent. Thus, the preliminary act of having a status and right to the
however, or 2.) if a putative heir has lost the right to have himself declared in
estate of the decedent, was sought to be determined herein. However,
that SP as co-heir and he can no longer ask for its re-opening, then an ordinary
the establishment of a status, a right, or a particular fact is remedied
civil action can be filed for his declaration as heir in order to bring about the
through a special proceeding (Sec. 3(c), Rule 1), not an ordinary civil
annulment of partition or distribution or adjudication of a property or
action whereby a party sues another to enforce a right.
properties belonging to the estate of the deceased.
● In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or wrongly that she was
the sole heir to Portugal's estate, executed the Affidavit of Adjudication
SUMMARY: under the second sentence of Rule 74, Section 1. Said rule is an
● In 1942, Jose Portugal married Paz Lazo, with whom he had a daughter exception to the general rule that when a person dies leaving a
Leonila (respondent Portugal-Beltran)). In 1948, he married Isabel de la property, it should be judicially administered and the competent court
Puerta (petitioner), with whom he had a son Jose (co-petitioner). should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order established in
● Portugal and his 4 siblings executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition Sec. 6, Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or in case he did, he
and Waiver of Rights over the estate of their father, Mariano Portugal, failed to name an executor therein.
who died intestate. In the deed, Portugal‘s siblings waived their rights, ● It appearing, however, that in the present case the only property of the
interests, and participation over a parcel of land in his favor. intestate estate of Portugal is the parcel of land, to still subject it, under
● Paz died in 1984 and Portugal died intestate in 1985. Respondent then the circumstances of the case, to a special proceeding which could be
executed an “Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status of Puerta and
Deceased Person” adjudicating to herself the parcel of land. The Portugal Jr. as heirs is not only impractical; it is burdensome to the
Registry of Deeds then issued the title in her name. 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 Puerta and Portugal Jr.‘s status as
heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by Puerta and Portugal Jr.,
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.

RULING: Petition GRANTED. CA decision SET ASIDE. Case REMANDED to

RTC-Caloocan.

NOTES: