HEIRS OF TEOFILO GABATAN, NAMELY: LOLITA GABATAN, POMPEYO GABATAN, PEREGRINO

GABATAN, REYNALDO GABATAN, NILA GABATAN AND JESUS JABINIS, RIORITA GABATAN
TUMALA AND FREIRA GABATAN, PETITIONERS,
-VERSUS- HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND LOURDES EVERO PACANA, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No.
150206, FIRST DIVISION, March 13, 2009, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

FACTS

Lot 3095 C-5 was declared for taxation in the name of Juan Gabatan. Lourdes alleged that she is the
sole owner of Lot 3095 C-5, having inherited the same from her deceased mother, Hermogena, who
was the only child of Juan and his wife, Laureana. Lourdes alleged that upon Juan’s death, Lot 3095
C-5 was entrusted to his brother, Teofilo, and Teofilo's wife, Rita, for administration. Prior to her
death, Hermogena demanded for the return of the land but to no avail. After Hermogena's death,
Lourdes also did the same but petitioners refused..

Petitioners, on the other hand, maintained that Juan Gabatan died without any issue in 1934, and
was survived his siblings Teofilo, Macaria and Justa. These siblings and/or their heirs inherited the
subject land from Juan Gabatan and have been in possession thereof in the concept of owners for
more than fifty (50) years. Petitioners added that a similar case was previously filed by Lourdes
against Teofilo's wife, Rita, but the case was dismissed for lack of interest. Finally, petitioners
contended that the complaint lacks or states no cause of action or, if there was any, the same has
long prescribed and/or has been barred by laches.

ISSUE
WON the issue on Lourdes’s heirship can be resolved in the same civil action for recovery of
ownership and possession of property.

RULING
Yes. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in
the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding.
However, in this case, similar to that of Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, there appears to be only one
parcel of land being claimed by the contending parties as their inheritance from Juan Gabatan. Thus,
it would be more practical to dispense with a separate special proceeding for the determination of
the status of Lourdes as the sole heir of Juan Gabatan, especially since the parties to the civil case
had voluntarily submitted the issue to the RTC and already presented their evidence regarding the
issue of heirship in the proceeding. Also, the RTC assumed jurisdiction over the same and
consequently rendered judgment thereon.

As to proof of heirship, two conflicting birth certificates of Lourdes were presented at the RTC.
Lourdes's mother's birth certificate, which would have been the best evidence of Hermogena's
relationship to Juan Gabatan, was never offered as evidence at the RTC. Neither did Lourdes present
any authentic document or final judgment categorically evidencing Hermogena's relationship to
Juan Gabatan.

Lourdes’s cause of action accrued in 1933, but it is only in 1978 that Lourdes filed her first complaint to
recover the subject property against Rita Gabatan, which case was dismissed without prejudice for
failure to prosecute. Again, Lourdes waited until 1989 to refile the present case.

Thus, Lourdes dismally failed to substantiate, with convincing, credible and independently
verifiable proof, her assertion that she is the sole heir of Juan Gabatan and thus, entitled to the
property under litigation. Aggravating the weakness of her evidence were the circumstances that
(a) she did not come to court with clean hands for she presented a tampered/altered, if not outright
spurious, copy of her certificate of live birth and (b) she unreasonably delayed the prosecution of
her own cause of action.