Absentees a.
Since petitioner claimed to an illegitimate child, she cannot inherit from the
GR No. 84250 (1992) – Tol-Noquera v. Villasor
Cruz, J.
Petitioner alleged that she was an acknowledged natural child (ANC) of Remigio Tol and
filed for a petition for appointment as administratrix (implied in the case that this petition
was accompanied by a petition to declare Remigio an absentee). She alleged that private
respondent fraudulently obtained a TCT over a property allegedly owned by Remigio. RTC
dismissed the petition because it considered petitioner’s petition to be a collateral attack to
a TCT.
DOCTRINE
It is not necessary that a declaration of absence be made in a separate from and prior to a
petition for administration.
FACTS
1. Petitioner Daya Maria Tol filed a petition for appointment as administratrix of the
property of the absentee Remigio Tol (implied in the case that she filed a petition to
declare Remigio an absentee together with the abovementioned petition). She alleged
that
a. She was Remigio’s acknowledged natural child (ANC) who had been
missing for 2 years;
b. Private respondent Diosdado Tol had fraudulently secured a free patent over
Remigio’s property and was able to secure a title over it.
c. She was seeking to be appointed to be an administrator, so she could
recover said property.
2. Respondent filed an opposition and argued that
a. Petitioner was not an ANC of the absentee;
b. The property sought to be administered was covered by an original
certificate of title under his name.
3. RTC ruled IFO respondent and dismissed the petition because
a. It was a collateral attack on a Torrens title;
b. Useless to appoint an administrator since a third party claimed to be the
owner of the property.
4. Petitioner filed a MR, which was denied. She filed a notice of appeal with the SC, but
required her to file a R45 petition because the issue involved pure questions of law.
5. Petitioner argued that her petition was not intended as a collateral attack on a Torrens
title, so Article 389(3) of NCC1 does not apply, which provides the grounds for
administration of an absentee’s property to cease.
6. Respondent argued that
1
Art. 389. The administration shall cease in any of the following cases:
(3) When a third person appears, showing by a proper document that he has acquired the
absentee's property by purchase or other title;
In these cases the administrator shall cease in the performance of his office, and the
property shall be at the disposal of those who may have a right thereto.
relatives of her father pursuant to Article 992 of NCC (aka Iron Curtain
Rule)2;
b. She did not need to be appointed as administrator just to have his title to the
property annulled;
c. Her remedy should have been for the annulment of the title within one year,
since she alleged the presence of fraud; and
d. RTC’s decision had become final and executory.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. WON the dismissal was proper – NO.
a. Petition was not a collateral attack on a Torrens title.
i. Her allegation that there was a need to appoint an administrator to
prevent the property from being usurped did not amount to a
collateral attack on the title.
ii. The fraudulent issuance of title was to justify her appointment.
b. Re: TCT used to defeat petitioner’s appointment
i. RTC was contradictory because while it relied on such title to
justify the dismissal, it also suggested that it could be attacked as
long as it was not in the same proceeding before it.
c. Re: The Iron Curtain Rule
i. Her disqualification as an heir to her supposed grandpatents does
not inhibit her from petitioning for a declaration of absence or to be
appointed as an administratrix of the absentee’s estate.
ii. After going through the different provisions under absentees in the
NCC, SC concluded that it is not necessary that a declaration of
absence be made in a separate from and prior to a petition for
administration.
1. Reiterated the ruling in Reyes v. Alejandro and Pejer v.
Martinez.
2. Martinez involved a combined/consolidated petition to
declare a husband an absentee and to place the
management of the conjugal properties in the hands of
the wife.
iii. The purpose of the rules is the protection of the interests and
property of the absentee, not of the administrator.
iv. It is immaterial if the administrator is entitled to inherit the property
to be administered, but rather, whether petitioner is competent to
be appointed as administratrix.
v. The issue on the title/ownership over the property must be
threshed out in a separate proceeding.
d. Re: indefeasibility of TCTs after the period of 1 year
i. Petitioner has the choice to file a claim for reconveyance or a
complaint for damages.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
2
Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in
the same manner from the illegitimate child.
1
Petition is GRANTED. Case is REMANDED to determine the legal personality of petitioner
to petition for the declaration of the Remigio’s absence and her competence to be
appointed as admnistratrix.

OTHER NOTES
Art. 381. When a person disappears from his domicile his whereabouts being unknown,
and without leaving an agent to administer his property the judge, at the instance of an
interested party, a relative, or a friend, may appoint a person to represent him in all that
may be necessary.

This same rule shall be observed when under similar circumstances the power conferred
by the absentee has expired.

Art. 382. The appointment referred to in the preceding article having been made, the judge
shall take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights and interest of the absentee and
shall specify the powers, obligations and remuneration of his representatives, regulating
them according to the circumstances, by the rules concerning guardians.

Art. 383. In the appointment of a representative, the spouse present shall be preferred
when there is no legal separation.
If the absentee left no spouse, or if the spouse present is a minor, any competent person
may be appointed by the court.

Art. 384. Two years having elapsed without any news about the absentee or since the
receipt of the last news, and five years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of
the administration of his property, his absence may be declared.

Art. 385. The following may ask for the declaration of absence:
(1) The spouse present;
(2) The heirs instituted in a will, who may present an authentic copy of the same;
(3) The relatives who may succeed by the law of intestacy;
(4) Those who may have over the property of the absentee some right subordinated to the
condition of his death.

Art. 386. The judicial declaration of absence shall not take effect until six months after its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation.