Noob Case Digest

A blog that is about Philippine laws and cases. But it is mainly about Philippine Jurisprudence or cases
decided by the Philippine Supreme Court. I hope that everyone who reads this blog will find its content
useful. Good luck on your journey in life! CAVEAT: The authors of this blog is NOT A LAWYER but
intends to be one if the universe wills it! :D

Home ▼

Home ▼

Friday, March 22, 2019

Capablanca vs. Bas Case Digest G.R. No. 224144 June 28, 2017

Capablanca vs. Bas Case Digest 

G.R. No. 224144 ; June 28, 2017

PRINCIPLE/S:
Special Proceedings
a) Declaration of heirship
Declaration of heirship must be made only in a special proceeding and not in an ordinary civil action for
reconveyance of property
When Applicable: Adverse parties are putative heirs to a decedent's estate or parties to the special
proceedings for an estate's settlement (Litam and Solivio case)

Why it is not applicable in this case: Petitioner does not claim any filiation with Pedro or seek to establish her
right as his heir as against the respondents
- Hence determination of petitioners' status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners

b) No judicial declaration of heirship is necessary in order that an heir may assert his or her right to the
property of the deceased.
Reason: This is upon the theory that the property of a deceased person, both real and personal, becomes the
property of the heir by the mere fact of death of his predecessor in interest.

Remedial Law
a) Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court
"[ d]efenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived

FACTS: Pedro acquired a lot. He sold this to Faustina. After the death of Faustina, her heirs executed a
notarized Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Absolute Sale of the subject lot and it was conveyed
to Alejandra. Alejandra sold the land Deen, who in turn sold it to Atty. 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 executed
an Additional ExtraJudicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale, which sold the land to Norberto who took
possession of and built a house on it. Norberto died without a will and was succeeded by Lolita.
Josefina, who represented the Heirs Pedro, filed a complaint for Clarification of Ownership of the subject lot
against Lolita. Later, Lolita sought to register her portion in subject lot but was denied by the Register of
Deeds, citing the need for a court order. Lolita then learned that TCT No. T-96676 had been partially cancelled
and TCT Nos. T-100181, T-100182, T-100183, and T-100185 had been issued in the name of the Heirs of Pedro
Bas, represented by Josefina.  Lolita filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City for the
cancellation of the titles.

RTC ruled in favor of Lolita. Heirs of Pedro appealed to the CA. The CA reversed the RTC Decision and
dismissed the complaint. According to the CA, Lolita must first be declared as the sole heir to the estate of
Norberto in a proper special proceeding

ISSUE/S:
1) WON petitioner should first be declared an heir of Norberto in order to proceed with this case.
2) WON it was proper for the CA to dismiss the case based on a ground that has not been raised.

HELD:
1) NO. The dispute in this case is not about the heirship of petitioner to Norberto but the validity of the sale of
the property from Pedro to Faustina, from which followed a series of transfer transactions that culminated in
the sale of the property to Norberto. For with Pedro's sale of the property, it follows that there would be no
more ownership or right to property that would have been transmitted to his heirs.

Furthermore, no judicial declaration of heirship is necessary in order that an heir may assert his or her right to
the property of the deceased. This is upon the theory that the property of a deceased person, both real and
personal, becomes the property of the heir by the mere fact of death of his predecessor in interest. There is no
legal precept or established rule which imposes the necessity of a previous legal declaration regarding their
status as heirs to an intestate on those who, being of age and with legal capacity, consider themselves the
legal heirs of a person, in order that they may maintain an action arising out of a right which belonged to their
ancestor.

Moreover, the pronouncement in the Heirs of Yaptinchay that a declaration of heirship must be made only in a
special proceeding and not in an ordinary civil action for reconveyance of property is not applicable in this
case. Such ruling is only applicable if the adverse parties were putative heirs to a decedent's estate or parties
to the special proceedings for an estate's settlement. Here, the main issue is the annulment of title to property,
which ultimately hinges on the validity of the sale from Pedro to Faustina. Petitioner does not claim any
filiation with Pedro or seek to establish her right as his heir as against the respondents. Rather, petitioner
seeks to enforce her right over the property which has been allegedly violated by the fraudulent acts of
respondents.

2) NO.  Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states, "defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion
to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. Here, respondents never raised their objection to petitioner's
capacity to sue either as an affirmative defense or in a motion to dismiss." Thus, CA should not have
dismissed the case based on such ground since it was deemed waived due to the fact that it was not pleaded
in either a motion to dismiss or answer

Ambot Dunno

Share
No comments:

Post a Comment

‹ Home ›
View web version

About Me
Ambot Dunno
View my complete profile

Powered by Blogger.