PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
REPUBLIC VS. CA
[Summary not Special]
Special Proceeding
- A remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a
right or a particular fact
- Perfected upon the filing of notice of appeal AND record on
appeal with the trial court.
- Period to appeal is 30 days.
- somebody has to be impleaded as nominal respondent
- Although there is no private party being sued, the
proceeding still includes a respondent party.
Civil Action
- A remedy by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong.
- Perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal
- Period to appeal is 15 days from (receipt of decision) notice
or decision or final order appealed from.
Decision of the Court of Appeals
Petition for declaration of presumptive death of a person is in the
nature of a special proceeding since it merely seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact. Such a petition does not seek to
enforce or protect a right or prevent redress of a wrong. Hence, the
OSG should have filed, in addition to its Notice of Appeal, a record
on appeal.
Decision of the Supreme Court
There is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc is a
summary proceeding under the Family Code and NOT a Special
Proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court. It being a summary
proceeding, the filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial court’s
order sufficed and no record on appeal needed.
- rules of procedure are not to be applied in a technical sense
Facts of the Case:
- Petition to declare the presumptive death of Absentee
Spouse Clemente Jomoc who had left his wife nine years
earlier.
- Petition was granted. Trial judge, Judge Fortunito Madrona
cited Article 41 of the Family Code. Republic through OSG
sought to appeal the said order of the trial court by filing a
notice of appeal.
- Trial court disapproved the Notice of Appeal it being that no
record of appeal was filed and served as required by and
pursuant to Sec. 2(a), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, the present case being a special proceeding.
- The Republic’s motion for reconsideration of the trial
court’s order of disapproval was denied hence, it filed a
petition for certiorari in the CA.
- Republic contended that the declaration of presumptive
death of a person under Article 41 of the Family Code is not
a special proceeding or a case of multiple or separate
appeals requiring a record on appeal.
Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown
whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead
for all purposes, except for those of succession.
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 1
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
Upon the other hand, Article 41 of the Family Code, upon which the
trial court anchored its grant of the petition for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absent spouse, provides:
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence
of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the
celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouses had been
absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a
well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In
case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the
circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil
Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the
preceding paragraph, the spouses present must institute a summary
proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect
of a reappearance of the absent spouse
Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, on Modes of
Appeal, invoked by the trial court in disapproving petitioner’s Notice
of Appeal, provides:
Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. - (a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the
Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of
appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order
appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings
and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or
these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be
filed and served in like manner.
there are other proceedings not mentioned in the enumeration that
nevertheless partake the nature of a special proceeding.
Pacific Banking Employees Org. v. CA/Nañagas and President of
PDIC vs. CA
Facts:
1. Pacific Banking Corporation was placed under receivership
by the CBP and was later placed under liquidation for which
a Liquidator - Vitaliano Nañagas was appointed.
2. CBP filed with the RTC of Manila a petition entitled "Petition
for Assistance in the Liquidation of Pacific Banking
Corporation." which was granted and after which claims by
creditors were filed.
3. The Pacific Union Banking Corporation Employees
Organization (union) filed a complaint-in-intervention
seeking payment of holiday pay, 13th month pay
differential, salary increase differential, Christmas bonus,
and cash equivalent of Sick Leave Benefit due its members
as employees of PaBC. The trial court ordered the payment
of the principal claims.
4. The Liquidator filed a MFR and Clarification of the order.
The trial court judge modified the said order but denied the
Liquidator’s MFR which prompted the former to file a
Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Additional Time to
Submit Record on Appeal. OSG also filed a Notice of Appeal
in behalf of the Liquidator.
5. Trial court judge disallowed the NOA on the ground that it
was not filed on time or beyond 15 days.
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 2
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
6. Ang Keong Lan and E.J. Int’l likewise filed claims for the
payment of investment in the PaBC in the form of shares of
stock.
7. The trial court judge again ordered the Liquidator to pay the
said claims.
8. The Liquidator filed separate petitions for Certiorari,
Prohibition, and Mandamus in the CA to set aside the
orders of the trial court denying his appeals from the orders
granting the claims of the Union and of the
stockholders/investors.
9. Ruling of the 5th Division : the case of the Union that the
proceeding before the trial court was a special proceeding
and, therefore, the period for appealing from any decision
or final order rendered therein is 30 days. Since the notice
of appeal of the Liquidator was filed on the 30th day of his
receipt of the decision granting the Union's claims, the
appeal was brought on time. The Fifth Division, therefore,
set aside the orders of the lower court and directed the
latter to give due course to the appeal of the Liquidator and
set the Record on Appeal he had filed for hearing.
10. 14th Division: in the case of the Stockholders/Investors that
a liquidation proceeding is an ordinary action. Therefore,
the period for appealing from any decision or final order
rendered therein is 15 days and that since the Liquidator's
appeal notice was filed on the 23rd day of his receipt of the
order appealed from, deducting the period during which his
motion for reconsideration was pending, the notice of
appeal was filed late. Accordingly, the Fourteenth Division
dismissed the Liquidator's petition.
11. The petition for assistance of the court in the liquidation of
an asset of a bank is not "one to establish the status or right
of a party or a particular fact." Contrary to the submission of
the petitioner, the petition is not intended to establish the
fact of insolvency of the bank. The insolvency of the bank
had already been previously determined by the Central
Bank in accordance with Section 9 of the CB Act before the
petition was filed. All that needs to be done is to liquidate
the assets of the bank and thus the assistance of the
respondent court is sought for that purpose.
12. It should be pointed out that this petition filed is not among
the cases categorized as a special proceeding under Section
1, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, nor among the special
proceedings that may be appealed under Section 1, Rule
109 of the Rules.
13. Action distinguished from a Special Proceeding:
- action is distinguished from special proceeding in
that the former is a formal demand of a right by one
against another, while the latter is but a petition for
a declaration of a status, right or fact. Where a
party litigant seeks to recover property from
another, his remedy is to file an action. Where his
purpose is to seek the appointment of a guardian
for an insane, his remedy is a special proceeding to
establish the fact or status of insanity calling for an
appointment of guardianship.
Issue:
Whether or not a petition for liquidation is in the nature of a special
proceeding.
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 3
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
Ruling:
A petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation is in the
nature of a special proceeding. Such petition does not seek the
enforcement or protection of a right nor the prevention or redress
of a wrong against a party. It does not pray for affirmative relief for
injury arising from a party's wrongful act or omission nor state a
cause of action that can be enforced against any person.
What it seeks is merely a declaration by the trial court of the
corporation's insolvency so that its creditors may be able to file
their claims in the settlement of the corporation's debts and
obligations. Put in another way, the petition only seeks a
declaration of the corporation's debts and obligations. Put in
another way, the petition only seeks a declaration of the
corporation's state of insolvency and the concomitant right of
creditors and the order of payment of their claims in the disposition
of the corporation's assets.
A liquidation proceeding involves 2 phases. First is concerned with
the approval or disapproval of claims. The second involves the
approval by the liquidation court of the distribution plan prepared
by the duly appointed liquidator.
The very nature of a liquidation proceeding requires that the
appeal be 30 days and not 15 days. The issuance of an Order affects
only the particular claims involved which ipso facto creates a
situation where multiple appeals are allowed. In such a case, when
there is an appeal from an Order, the records of the case are not
elevated to an appellate court but remain in the liquidation court. In
lieu of the original record, a record of appeal is instead required to
be prepared and transmitted to the appellate court. Since a record
on appeal is necessary in each and every appeal made, then the
period to appeal therefore is 30 days, a record on appeal being
required.
Each claim is considered as separate and distinct from one another.
A liquidation proceeding resembles the proceeding for the
settlement of estate of deceased persons under Rules 73 to 91 of
the Rules of Court. The two have a common purpose: the
determination of all the assets and the payment of all the debts
and liabilities of the insolvent corporation or the estate.
Obviously, in the event that an appeal from an Order allowing or
disallowing a particular claim is made, only said claim is affected,
leaving the others to proceed with their ordinary course. In such
case, the original records of the proceeding are not elevated to the
appellate court. They remain with the liquidation court. In lieu of
the original record, a record of appeal is instead required to be
prepared and transmitted to the appellate court.
TRAC Answer:
A liquidation proceeding is in the nature of a special proceeding.
Such petition does not seek the enforcement or protection of a right
nor the prevention or redress of a wrong against a party. It does not
pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from a party's wrongful
act or omission nor state a cause of action that can be enforced
against any person. Its being in the nature of a special proceeding
can also be implied from the nature of the proceeding itself.
Liquidation proceedings involve two phases: First is concerned with
the approval or disapproval of claims. The second involves the
approval by the liquidation court of the distribution plan prepared
by the duly appointed liquidator. Each and every claim in a
liquidation proceeding is treated as distinct and separate from one
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 4
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
another which ipso facto creates a situation where multiple appeals
are allowed. An Order issued only pertains to a particular claim
affected by such an Order leaving other claims unaffected. In such a
case, the original records of the proceeding are not elevated to the
appellate court. They remain with the liquidation court and in lieu of
the original records, a record on appeal is prepared and transmitted
to the appellate court. Therefore, a record on appeal being
required, then the period to appeal should be 30 and not 15 days.
14. As to the liquidator’s appeal concerning the claim filed by
the stockholders/investors, the Court likewise dismissed it
having failed to file a record on appeal with the result that
he failed to perfect his appeal.
Republic vs. Sagun
Facts:
1. In the present case, petitioner assails the propriety of the
decision of the trial court declaring respondent a Filipino
citizen after finding that respondent was able to
substantiate her election of Filipino citizenship. Petitioner
contends that respondent’s petition for judicial declaration
of election of Philippine citizenship is procedurally and
jurisdictionally impermissible.
2. Respondent applied for a Philippine passport which was
however denied due to the citizenship of her father and
there being no annotation on her birth cert that she has
elected Philippine citizenship.
3. Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her
election of Phil. citizenship and prayed that the local civil
registrar of Baguio be ordered to annotate the same on her
bc.
4. The OSG entered its appearance as counsel for the Republic.
5. the trial court rendered a decision granting the petition and
declaring respondent a Filipino citizen.
6. Petitioner argued that law and jurisprudence do not
contemplate judicial action or proceeding for the
declaration of Phil citizenship therefore the petition of the
respondent was improper.
7. Petitioner also argued that even assuming that the said
petition is sanctioned, respondent failed to comply with the
procedural requirements of the law.
Issue: Whether or not an action or proceeding for judicial
declaration of election of Phil citizenship is procedurally and
judicially permissible. NO.
Ruling:
No. There is no proceeding established by law, or the Rules for the
judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual. There is no
specific legislation authorizing the institution of a judicial
proceeding to declare that a given person is part of our citizenry.
Clearly, it was erroneous for the trial court to make a specific
declaration of respondents Filipino citizenship as such
pronouncement was not within the courts competence.
When respondent was born on August 8, 1959, the governing
charter was the 1935 Constitution, which declares as citizens of the
Philippines those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 5
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
1935 Constitution:
- those whose mothers are Filipinos and those who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
- the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother
and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father,
unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected
Philippine citizenship.
- an illegitimate child of a Filipina need not do anything on
her part in order to acquire Philippine citizenship.
When the respondent was born, the Constitution in effect was the
1935 Constitution and being a legitimate child, she therefore
follows the citizenship of her father.
Based on the foregoing, the statutory formalities of electing
Philippine citizenship are: (1) a statement of election under oath; (2)
an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the
Philippines; and (3) registration of the statement of election and of
the oath with the nearest civil registry
Natcher vs. CA
The probate court, in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction, is the
best forum to ventilate and adjudge the issue of advancement as
well as other related matters involving the settlement of Graciano's
estate.
CA: It is the probate court that has exclusive jurisdiction to make a
just and legal distribution of the estate. The court a quo, trying an
ordinary action for reconveyance / annulment of title, went beyond
its jurisdiction when it performed the acts proper only in a special
proceeding for the settlement of estate of a deceased person.
Thus the court a quo erred in regarding the subject property as
advance inheritance. What the court should have done was merely
to rule on the validity of (the) sale and leave the issue on
advancement to be resolved in a separate proceeding instituted for
that purpose.
Facts:
Graciano, who was then married to Graciana, were the owners of a
parcel of land in Manila. Upon the death of his wife, he, together
with his 6 children, entered into an extrajudicial settlement of the
said estate.
Graciano donated to his children a portion of his interest in the
land. Subsequently, his remaining lot was sold to a third person.
Graciano married Natcher, during their marriage, Graciano sold his
remaining land to Natcher. Graciano died leaving Natcher and his 6
children as his compulsory heirs.
The 6 children filed a complaint against Natcher stating that she
employed fraud, misrepresentation and forgery, acquired the land
by making it appear that Graciano executed a deed of sale over the
said land, as a consequence, that their legitime has been impaired.
The trial court rendered a decision holding that the deed of sale
executed by G in favor of P is prohibited by law and thus a complete
nullity. The deed of sale likewise cannot be regarded as a valid
donation as it was equally prohibited by law. Finally, although the
deed of sale cannot be regarded as such or as a donation, it may
however be regarded as an extension of advance inheritance of P
being a compulsory heir of the deceased.
The CA reversed the trial court’s decision and held that the trial
court had no jurisdiction to rule that the sale can be regarded as an
extension of advance inheritance.
Issue:
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 6
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
Whether or not an RTC, acting as a court of general jurisdiction in an
action for reconveyance annulment of title with damages, may
adjudicate matters relating to the settlement of estate of a
deceased person particularly on question as to advancement of
property made by the decedent to any of the heirs.
Ruling:
No, matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased such
as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the
nature of a special proceeding. It is the probate court that has
exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution of the
estate. Therefore, the trial court, in trying an ordinary action for
reconveyance/annulment of title, went beyond its jurisdiction when
it performed acts proper only in a special proceeding.
The trial court did not have the authority to regard the subject
property as an advance inheritance. What it should have done was
merely rule on the validity of the sale and leave the issue on
advancement to be resolved in a separate proceeding instituted for
that purpose.
Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines civil
action and special proceedings, in this wise:
"XXX a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another
for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong.
"A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are
government by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to
specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.
"XXX
"c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks
to establish a status, a right or a particular fact."
As could be gleaned from the foregoing, there lies a marked
distinction between an action and a special proceeding. An action is
a formal demand of one's right in a court of justice in the manner
prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying
legal remedies according to definite established rules. The term
"special proceeding" may be defined as an application or
proceeding to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular
fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings are
required unless the statute expressly so provides. In special
proceedings, the remedy is granted generally upon an application or
motion.
Applying these principles, an action for reconveyance and
annulment of title with damages is a civil action, whereas matters
relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as
advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the
nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the
application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Clearly, matters which involve settlement and distribution of the
estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of the
probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
Corollarily, the Regional Trial Court in the instant case, acting in its
general jurisdiction, is devoid of authority to render an adjudication
and resolve the issue of advancement of the real property in favor
of herein petitioner Natcher, inasmuch as Civil Case No. 471075 for
reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is not, to our
mind, the proper vehicle to thresh out said question. Moreover,
under the present circumstances, the RTC of Manila, Branch 55 was
not properly constituted as a probate court so as to validly pass
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 7
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
upon the question of advancement made by the decedent Graciano
Del Rosario to his wife, herein petitioner Natcher.
Note:
although generally, a probate court may not decide a question of
title or ownership, yet if the interested parties are all heirs,  or the
question is one of collation or advancement,  or the parties consent
to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights
of third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is
competent to decide the question of ownership.
In contrast, a regular court may decide on questions relating to title
or ownership but not on questions which partake the nature of a
special proceeding.
De Manalo vs. CA
petitioners wanted na outright dismissal of the petition for judicial
settlement of estate citing Rule 16 Section 1(j) of the rules of court,
according to them petitioners failed to aver that earnest efforts
toward compromise involving member of the same family have
been made prior to the filing of the said petition as required under
Article 222 of the CC.
petitioner: petition for settlement of estate of a deceased is an
ordinary action; that it contains certain averments which are
indicative of its adversarial nature. consequently, the said petition
of the respondents should be dismissed under Rule 16, Section 1(j)
of the ROC. (failure to comply with a condition precedent for filing
such a claim) citing Art. 222 of the CC.
Respondent: special proceeding
Facts:
Troadio Manalo, a resident of 1966 Maria Clara Street, Sampaloc,
Manila died intestate on February 14, 1992. He was survived by his
wife, Pilar S. Manalo, and his 11 children, namely: Purita M. Jayme,
Antonio Manalo, Milagros M. Terre, Belen M. Orillano, Isabelita
Manalo, Rosalina M. Acuin, Romeo Manalo, Roberto Manalo,
Amalia Manalo, Orlando Manalo and Imelda Manalo, who are all of
legal age.
● At the time of his death, Troadio left several real
properties located in Manila and in the province of Tarlac
including a business under the name and style Manalo’s
Machine Shop with offices in Quezon City and in
Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
● On November 26, 1992, herein respondents, who are 8
of the surviving children of the late Troadio filed a
petition with the respondent RTC for the judicial
settlement of the estate of their late father and for the
appointment of their brother, Romeo Manalo, as
administrator thereof.
○ The trial court issued an order setting the said
petition for hearing and directing the
publication of the order for 3 consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in
Metro Manila, and further directing service by
registered mail of the said order upon the
heirs named in the petition at their respective
addresses mentioned therein.
● On the date of hearing, the trial court issued an order
“declaring the whole world in default, except the
government,” and set the reception of evidence of the
petitioners therein on March 16, 1993.
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 8
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
○ However,this order of general default was set
aside by the trial court upon motion of herein
petitioners (oppositors therein) who were
granted 10 days within which to file their
opposition to the petition.
● Several pleadings were subsequently filed by herein
petitioners, through counsel, culminating in the filing of
an Omnibus Motion seeking: (1) to set aside and
reconsider the Order of the trial court dated which
denied the motion for additional extension of time to file
opposition; (2) to set for preliminary hearing their
affirmative defenses as grounds for dismissal of the case;
(3) to declare that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the persons of the oppositors; and (4)
for the immediate inhibition of the presiding judge.
Issue:
Whether the settlement of estate of late Troadio is an ordinary civil
action, which is adversarial in nature. – NO. (Special proceeding =
Non-adversarial) The settlement of an estate is in the nature of a
special proceeding. It is a fundamental rule that in the
determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the
averments and the character of the relief sought in the complaint,
or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be controlling.
Ruling:
It is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of the nature of
an action or proceeding, the averments and the character of the
relief sought in the complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar,
shall be controlling.
It is our view that herein petitioners may not be allowed to defeat
the purpose of the essentially valid petition for the settlement of
the estate of the late Troadio Manalo by raising matters that are
irrelevant and immaterial to the said petition.
Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of
the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward
a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed,
subject to the limitations in Article 2035.
The said provision only applies to ordinary actions. Petitioners in
this case are not being sued.
De Leon vs. CA
A probate court, whether in a testate or intestate proceeding, can
only pass upon questions of title provisionally. The patent reason is
the probate court’s limited jurisdiction and the principle that
questions of title or ownership, which result in inclusion or
exclusion from the inventory of the property, can only be settled in
a separate action.
RTC: issued the assailed Order ruling that it is within its jurisdiction
to determine whether or not titled properties should be collated.
(wrong)
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 9
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
CA: committed an error when it ruled that the assailed order has
become final and binding.
Facts:
Teresita de Leon was appointed administratrix of the estate of
Rafael Nicolas. Private Respondent Ramon Nicolas, an oppositor-
applicant in the intestate proceedings, filed a motion for collation
claiming that deceased Rafael Nicolas, during his lifetime, had given
real properties to his children by gratuitous title and that Teresita
failed to include the same in the inventory of the estate of the
decedent.
RTC acted on the motion for collation and ordered Teresita to
include the subject properties for collation in the instant probate
proceedings.
Teresita filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that the subject
properties were already titled in their names years ago and that the
titles may not be collaterally attacked in a motion for collation.
RTC removed Teresita from her position as administratrix.
CA: found petitioner’s petition devoid of merit. ruling that the Order
dated November 11, 1994 directing the inclusion of the properties
therein enumerated in the estate of the deceased Rafael Nicolas
had already become final for failure of petitioners to appeal from
the order of collation; that the appeal of the petitioner from the
Orders dated November 4, 1996 and December 3, 1996 removing
petitioner as administratrix is timely appealed; and, observing that
the notice of appeal and record on appeal appear to be unacted
upon by the RTC.
Issue: Whether or not the probate court can pass upon the
questions of title.
Ruling:
No. A probate court, whether in a testate or intestate proceeding,
can only pass upon questions of title provisionally. All that the said
court could do as regards said properties are determined whether
they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of
properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is a
dispute as to the ownership, then the opposing parties and the
administrator have to resort to an ordinary action for a final
determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate
court cannot do so.
CA committed an error in considering the assailed Order as final and
binding as it is in fact interlocutory in nature.
Solivio v. CA
Lee v. CA
II. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS
Uriarte v. CFI of Negros
Facts:
- SP No. 6344: Petition for the settlement of the estate of the
late Don Juan Uriarte y Goite filed in the CFI of Negros.
- SP No. 51396: Probate of a document alleged to be the last
will of the deceased Juan U. by one of the private
respondents, Juan Uriarte Zamacona. On the same day he
filed a motion to dismiss in SP No. 6344 on the ff. grounds:
that, as the deceased Juan Uriarte y Goite had left a last will,
there was no legal basis to proceed with said intestate
proceedings, and (2) that petitioner Vicente Uriarte had no
legal personality and interest to initiate said intestate
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 10
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
proceedings, he not being an acknowledged natural son of
the decedent.
Vicente Uriarte instituted SP No. 6344 alleging that as a natural son
of the deceased, he was his sole heir, and that during the lifetime of
the decedent, petitioner had instituted Civil Case No. 6142 in the
same Court for his compulsory acknowledgment as such natural
son.
Higinio Uriarte, nephew, opposed and alleged that the deceased
actually left a Will in Spain.
Juan Zamacona commenced SP No. 51396.
Petitioner Vicente U. opposed the said motion to dismiss and
contended that, as the Negros Court was first to take cognizance of
the settlement of the estate of the deceased, it had acquired
exclusive jurisdiction over the same pursuant to Rule 75, Sec. 1
(now Rule 73, Sec. 1) of the Rules of Court.
Negros Court sustained the motion to dismiss.
Rule 73, Sec. 1 of the ROC applies here. This means that since the
decedent is a nonresident, then the CFIs of the provinces in which
he had estate, have concurrent jurisdiction to take cognizance over
the proper special proceeding for the settlement of his estate, not
exclusive original as what the petitioner claims.
Venue and Process
Jurisdiction - is a matter of law which cannot be subject to
agreement of the parties.
Where to file the settlement of estate (BP 129) - IT dependS on the
gross value of the estate
Jurisdictional amount:
Threshold value - 300k (if it exceeds 300k RTC, lower than that then
MTC)
400k in Manila
Where there are multiple possible venues - then any of these
venues, wherever is most convenient.
“Take cognizance of the case” meaning - overt act of the Court
Take cognizance of the case v. exercise of jurisdiction:
TC - Taking cognizance kay murag nanotice na sa court and nagset
na ug date for hearing?
EJ - Exercise jurisdiction kay kanang e-try and decide na sa cour
Contest of jurisdiction:
appeal can only be made after the court has made a substantial
determination of the case
- appeal in the same case
- want of jurisdiction is glaring on the face of the case -
remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under rule 65
Dissolution of marriage upon the death of spouse
- the purpose of liquidation is to determine the net
distributable estate.
- need to liquidate the ar property to determine what
belongs to the spouse or to the community property.
- distribution is done in either testate or intestate proceeding
of the deceased spouse or in both of them if both of them
should die.
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 11
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I

Process

- even though the jurisdiction of the probate court is limited

Succession - 10 year, if 75 yo then 5 yrs only

onboard a vessel, warship - 4 yrs. a. Yes, the Mandaue City RTC was a correct venue because it exercises
concurrent jurisdiction with the other proper courts in the province
where the decedent died.
for purposes of remarriage
Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 73 of the ROC, in cases where the
4 years general rule decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death,
his will shall be proved or letters of administration granted, and his
2 years if with danger estate settled in the proper court in the province in which he resides
all other purposes at the time of his death. In this case, the courts referred to would be
the Cebu City RTC and the Mandaue City RTC. Although XX was a
7 years resident of Bogo City, the Court, in Fule v. CA ruled that the word
onboard a vessel 4 years "resides'' should be viewed or understood in its popular sense
which means that personal, actual, or physical habitation of a
for purposes of succession person, actual residence, or place of abode. Residence simply
requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place and while
10 years, if 75 then 5 years
no particular length of time is required, it must be more than just
temporary.

Remedies of a prejudiced heir: In this case, XX's stay in Mandaue City, in alternate with Cebu City,
was not merely temporary as it in fact lasted for more than a year.
- petition for the issuance of letters of administration
Hence, both Cebu City and Mandaue City may well be considered as
- action for reconveyance
XX’s residence wherein the filing of the petition to settle his estate
Secure sample copy of the following: in either court is proper; to the exclusion of others.

sample copy of deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate In conclusion, since the Mandaue RTC exercises concurrent
jurisdiction with the Cebu City RTC, then the former is a correct
affidavit of self-adjudication
venue.

University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 12

 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
b. Yes, the Mandaue City RTC has jurisdiction over the case because
the gross value of the deceased's estate, Php1,000,000.00, is
sufficient enough to trigger the exercise of the subject court's
jurisdiction. Section 19(4) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 has been
amended to vest jurisdiction over the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) in
all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross
value of the estate exceeds Php300,000.00 outside Metro Manila.
The Php1,000.000.00 should remain as it is for the purpose of
computing the gross estate of the deceased as debts are not yet to
be deducted. Simply, AA was wrong in saying that the gross value of
the estate is only around Php200,000.00 having deducted the
accumulated hospital bills spent on XX of at least Php800,000.00.
Hence, considering that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied in this
case, then the Mandaue City RTC has jurisdiction over the petition
for the settlement of estate of deceased XX.
Mananquil vs. Villegas
Facts:
The SolGen alleged that for over a period of 20 years, respondent
Villegas allowed lease contracts to be executed between his client
Felix Leong and a partnership HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS, of which
respondent is one of the partners, covering several parcels of land
of the estate.
Further, SolGen alleged that respondent committed a breach in the
performance of his duties as counsel of administrator Leong when
he allowed the renewal of contracts of lease for properties involved
in the testate proceedings to be undertaken in favor of HDJV
without notifying and securing the approval of the probate court.
__
Respondent was retained as counsel of record for Felix Leong, who
was appointed as administrator of the Testate Estate of the late
Felomina Zerna.
a lease of contract was executed between Leong and the Heirs of
Jose Villegas represented by the respondent’s brother-in-law
Marcelo Pastrano.
After which a partnership called HJDV was formed of which
respondent was a member.
Another lease of contract was entered into between Leong and
HJDV, containing basically the same terms and conditions as the
first contract, with Marcelo Pastrano signing once again as
representative for the partnership.
Pastrano died so the respondent was appointed manager.
Renewals of the lease contract were executed between Leong and
HJDV with respondent singing therein as representative of the
family partnership.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of committing grave acts of
misconduct in failing to secure the approval of the court in SP No.
460 to the various contracts executed between Leong and
respondent’s family partnership.
Ruling:
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 13
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
NO. The respondent need not secure prior approval from the
probate court in order to validly lease real properties of the estate.
Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 84 of the Revised Rules of Court, a
judicial executor or administrator has the right to the possession
and management of the real as well as the personal estate of the
deceased so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and
the expenses of administration. He may, therefore, exercise acts of
administration without special authority from the court having
jurisdiction of the estate. For instance, it has long been settled that
an administrator has the power to enter into lease contracts
involving the properties of the estate even without prior judicial
authority and approval.
Thus, considering that administrator Felix Leong was not required
under the law and prevailing jurisprudence to seek prior authority
from the probate court in order to validly lease real properties of
the estate, respondent, as counsel of Felix Leong, cannot be taken
to task for failing to notify the probate court of the various lease
contracts involved herein and to secure its judicial approval thereto.
Therefore, failure of respondent Villegas to secure prior authority
and approval from the probate court did not constitute acts of gross
misconduct.
However, notwithstanding this portion of the court’s ruling, and
contrary to the findings of the SolGen, the Court found sufficient
evidence to hold respondent subject to disciplinary sanction for
having, as counsel of record for the administrator, participated in
the execution of 1975 and 1978 of renewals of the lease agreement
involving properties of the estate in favor of the partnership HJDV,
of which respondent is a member.
By virtue of Article 1646 of the Civil Code, the persons referred to in
Article 1491 of the Civil Code, are prohibited from leasing, either in
person or through the mediation of another, the properties or
things mentioned in that article:
xxx
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and
inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with
the administration of justice, the property or rights in litigation or
levied upon on execution before the court within whose jurisdiction
or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition
includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to
lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the
object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
profession.
xxx
The above disqualification imposed on public and judicial officers
and lawyers is grounded on public policy considerations which
disallow the transactions entered into by them, whether directly or
indirectly, in view of the fiduciary relationship involved, or the
peculiar control exercised by these individuals over the properties
or rights covered.
****
Clear and unmistakable right - no remedy of preliminary injunction
There may be right but it should be clear and unmistakable; not
inchoate. The right of the heirs will only be considered clear and
unmistakable if all the debts have been paid already.
Saguinsin v. Lindayag
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 14
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I
In this case, the sister of the deceased file a Petition for the Issuance
of Letters of Administration to which the surviving spouse, filing in
behalf of his and the deceased’s adopted children, opposed. They
filed a motion to dismiss however under the new rules, this is no
longer allowed. Hence, as ruled in the Pilipinas Shell Case, the more
appropriate pleading should have been to use the same ground in
the motion to dismiss i.e., lack of interest in the estate, as an
affirmative defense. After pleading the affirmative defense, a
preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss
has been filed. The granting of the affirmative defense would bring
about the same result as if a motion to dismiss has been filed i.e.,
dismissal of the other party’s case.
Notes for the MT Exam:
Extent of jurisdiction of PC
General Rule:
The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must
be made in the proper special proceedings in court and not in an
ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property.
Exception:
- Practicality
- For the sake of practicality, as when the parties in the civil
case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court
and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of
heirship, and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment
thereon; OR
- When a SP had been instituted but had been finally closed
and terminated, and hence, cannot be reopened.
When may the PC exercise jurisdiction over questions of title to
property?
General Rule:
A PC cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to
be a part of the estate and equally claimed as belonging to outside
parties.
Exception:
If the purpose is to determine whether a certain property is to
excluded from or included in the inventory of the estate; then the
PC may pass upon the title thereto but, determination is not:
- conclusive
- final
- subject to final determination in a separate action which
the parties may institute.
The order of inclusion or exclusion of a certain property is merely
provisional and interlocutory.
The court which acquires jurisdiction over the properties of a
deceased person through the filing of the corresponding
proceedings, has supervision and control over the said properties,
and under the said power, it is the:
- inherent power of the court to see that the inventory
submitted by the A contains all the properties, rights, and
credits which the law requires.
University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 15
 PRELIMINARY NOTES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: PART I

In compliance with this duty, the C also has the inherent power to
determine what properties, rights, and credits of the deceased
should be included in or excluded from the inventory.

NOTE: Questions of title may be passed on provisionally, but the

final determination of the ownership of the property must be
threshed out in a separate civil action and not in the probate court.

If the purpose of passing on the question of title or ownership of

property is not to determine whether or not a property should be
included in the inventory, then the PC may not pass upon such
question; the exception is not triggered.

When may the PC pass upon the issue on ownership?

Where the interested parties are:

- the heirs;
- have all appeared in the proceeding;
- rights of third parties are not impaired.

University of Cebu - School of Law: Nodulaw Notes | 16