Pacific Banking v.

CA

FACTS:

- Pacific Banking was placed under receivership and placed for liquidation.
- A petition was filed by the Central Bank and was approved.
- The Union (the employees of PB), filed a complaint regarding the payment of its members as
employees. The Court ordered the payment if such claims.
- Keong Lan filed another claim for the payment of the investment which was allegedly in the
form of stocks.
- The RTC directed the liquidator to pay the employees and Keong Lan.
- The Liquidator moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied.
- The liquidator filed a Notice of Appeal from the order of the RTC which is beyond 15 days.
- The CA decided on two different divisions:
a) Fifth Division: The case before the Trial Court is a special proceeding and therefore the
period of appealing from any decision or final order is 30 days.
b) Fourteenth Division: The case of stockholders is an ordinary action. Therefore, the period of
filing an appeal is 15 days, and since the appeal was filed 23 days after notice, the
Liquidator’s petition must be denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a liquidation proceeding is an ordinary civil action?

HELD:

NO.

- A petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation should be classified as a SPECIAL

PROCEEDING. Such petition does not see for the enforcement or protection of a right nor the
prevention or redress of a wrong against another party. It does not pray for an affirmative relief
for injury. Liquidation process 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.
- The Liquidator’s Notice of Appeal was filed on time. The Civil Code provides that 15 days to file
an appeal is applicable to ordinary civil actions, while on Special Proceedings the required time
for appeal is 30 days. Thus, in the case at bar having been filed within the 30 days period, the
fifth division is correct in granting the motion for prohibition, mandamus of the Liquidator.
- BUT, Because of the Liquidator's failure to perfect his appeal, the order granting the claims of
the Stockholders/Investors became final. Consequently. the Fourteenth Division's decision
dismissing the Liquidator's Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus must be affirmed
albeit for a different reason.
CHING AND PO WING V. RODRIGUEZ

FACTS:

- The respondents, claiming to be heirs of Antionio filed a complaint against Stronghold, Global
Business Bank, for the rights and titles of the deceased Antonio ching.
- The complaint was captioned as one for Disinheritance, Declaration of Nullity, Affidavit of Extra
Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale, etc.
- Respondents contended that Antonio’s signature was forged by Ramon, and Ramon was the
prime suspect in killing Antonio, that Ramon misrepresented himself as the son of Antonio,
when in fact he was adopted.
- That Ramon sweet talked Mercedes, their family member to surrender to him the Certificate of
Time Deposit worth 4 million pesos.
- Respondents prayed for the issuance of a TRO to restrain ramon or his representatives from
disposingor selling any property that belongs to the estate of Antonio and Ramon be declared
disqualified from inheriting Antonio’s estate.
- Ramon Ching filed a motion to dismiss and subsequent Motion for reconsideration, contending
that the case must be decided on a Special Proceeding and not in an ordinary civil action
proceeding.
- The RTC Denied Ramon’s motion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC is correct in denying the Motion filed by Ramon?

HELD: YES.

The RTC is correct in denying the Motion filed by Ramon.

- 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. A
special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action where a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. To initiate a
special proceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be filed.

- Supreme Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that while the respondents in their Complaint
and Amended Complaint sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument
supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate was ever mentioned. Hence, despite the
prayer for Ramon's disinheritance, Civil Case No. 02-105251 does not partake of the nature of a
special proceeding and does not call for the probate court's exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
 TING V. LIRIO

FACTS:

- Spouses Lirio granted as the owner of the title of the lot in Cebu.
- An order directing the Land Registration Commission was directed to issue the corresponding
decree of registration and Certificate of Title to Spouses Lirio.
- Rolando Ting filed with RTC an application for Land registration with the same lot that was
awarded with Spouses Lirio.
- The respondents, heirs of Diego Lirio filed an opposition to the application of Rolando.
- The RTC granted the opposition of the respondent heirs.
- Rolando asserts that a final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion
within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is
barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived
judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry
- Rolando states that although the decision of the Land registration case had become final and
executory, no decree of registration has been issued by the Land Registration Authority.
- The petitioner raised the fact that the application of Rolando will constitute Res Judicata.
- The lower courts ruled in favour of Spouses Lirio.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the application of Rolando Ting constitutes Res Judicata?

HELD:

- Yes. Land Registration Proceeding is a Special proceeding. In a registration proceeding instituted

for the registration of a private land, with or without opposition, the judgment of the court
confirming the title of the applicant or oppositor, as the case may be, and ordering its
registration in his name constitutes, when final, res judicata against the whole world. It becomes
final when no appeal within the reglementary period is taken from a judgment of confirmation
and registration.
- Regarding the contention of Rolando about the execution by motion, such cannot apply to
Special proceeding cases. This provision of the Rules refers to civil actions and is not applicable
to special proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so because a party in a civil action
must immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and his
failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes the
decision unenforceable against the losing party. This provision of the Rules refers to civil actions
and is not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so because a
party in a civil action must immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against the
adverse party, and his failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided in
the Rules makes the decision unenforceable against the losing party.
FERNANDEZ V. MARAVILLA

FACTS:

Maravilla sought the probate of his late wifeâs will. The siblings sought denial of probate on the ground
that it was not signed on each and every page by the decedent. They likewise prayed for the
appointment of their brother as special administrator in lieu of the husband to protect their interest and
also due to failure to file an inventory. The probate of the will in the meantime was denied and to this,
the husband appealed. Consequently, the brother was appointed as administrator. The husband filed a
petition for certiorari and for preliminary injunction, praying therein the annulment of the brother as
coadministrator and the prohibition of the probate court from proceeding in his removal as
administrator. The petitioners moved for the certification of the same to the SC as the amount involved
exceeds the jurisdiction of the CA. Nevertheless, the CA decided in favor of the husband.

Issue: Whether or not the ruling of the CA is correct.

Held: Under Section 2, Rule 75, of the Rules of Court, the property to be administered and liquidated in
testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse is, not only that part of the conjugal estate
pertaining to the deceased spouse, but the entire conjugal estate. This Court has already held that even
if the deceased had left no debts, upon the dissolution of the marriage by the death of the husband or
wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated in the testate or
intestate proceedings of the deceased. In a number of cases where appeal was taken from an order of a
probate court disallowing a will, this Court, in effect, recognized that the amount or value involved or in
controversy therein is that of the entire estate. Not having appellate jurisdiction over the proceedings in
probate, considering that the amount involved therein is more than P200,000.00, the Court of Appeals
cannot also have original jurisdiction to grant the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for by
respondent in the instant case, which are merely incidental thereto. Note also that the present
proceedings under review were for the annulment of the appointment of Eliezar Lopez as special
coadministrator and to restrain the probate court from removing respondent as special administrator. It
is therefore, a contest for the administration of the estate and, consequently, the amount or value of
the assets of the whole estate is the value in controversy. It appearing that the value of the estate in
dispute is much more than P200,000.00, the Court of Appeals clearly had no original jurisdiction to issue
the writs in question.