3. Lim V CA - GR No.

124715, January 24, 2000

FACTS:
In 1994, Pastor Lim died. His wife, Rufina Lim petitioned with the lower court, acting as
a probate court, for the inclusion of 5 corporations into the inventory of the estate of
Pastor Lim. The 5 corporations were: Auto Truck Corporation, Alliance Marketing
Corporation, Speed Distributing, Inc., Active Distributing, Inc. and Action Company.
Rufina alleged that the assets of these corporations were owned wholly by Pastor; that
these corporations themselves are owned by Pastor and they are mere dummies of
Pastor. The corporations filed a motion for exclusion from the estate. They presented
proof (Torrens Titles) showing that the assets of the corporations are in their respective
names and titles. The probate court denied their motion. The Court of Appeals reversed
the decision of the probate court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the corporations and/or their assets should be included in the
inventory of the estate.

HELD: No. As regards the assets, the corporations were able to present their respective
Torrens Titles over the disputed assets. It is true that a probate court may pass upon the
question ownership albeit in a provisional manner but still, a Torrens Title cannot be
attacked collaterally in a probate proceeding, it must be attacked directly in a separate
proceeding

23. Nuguid vs Nuguid, No. L-23445, June 23, 1966; 17 SCRA 449

FACTS:
Rosario died without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her
legitimate parents Felix and Paz, and 6 brothers and sisters. Remedios, one of the
sister filed in court a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario instituting the former
as the sole, universal heir of all her properties. She prayed that said will be admitted to
probate and that letter of administration be issued to her. Felix and Paz opposed to the
probate of the will on the ground that by the institution of Remedios as universal heir of
the deceased, oppositors who are compulsory heirs in the direct ascending line
were illegally preterited and that in consequence, the institution is void. Article 854
provides that preterition of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line,
whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the
testator, shall annul the institution of heir. Petitioners contention is that the present is a
case of ineffective disinheritance rather than one of preterition drawing the conclusion
that Article 854 does not apply in the case at bar.

ISSUE: WON the institution of one of the sister of the deceased as the sole, universal
heir preterited the compulsory heirs.

HELD: Yes. Where the deceased left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate, but she
left forced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents, and her holographic will does
not explicitly disinherit them but simply omits their names altogether, the case is one of
preterition of the parents, not a case of ineffective disinheritance.
Preterition consists in the omission in the testators will of the forced heirs or anyone of
them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, through mentioned, they are
neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Disinheritance, in turn, is a

testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a
cause authorized by law.
Where the one sentence will institutes the petitioner as the sole, universal heir and
preterits the parents of the testatrix, and it contains no specific legacies or bequests,
such universal institution of petitioner, by itself, is void. And intestate succession
ensues.

43. Heirs of Doronio V. Heirs of Doronio GR No. 169454, 27 December 2007

FACTS:
Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante, now both deceased, were the registered
owners of a parcel of land located at Asingan, Pangasinan covered by Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 352. Marcelino Doronio and Fortunato Doronio, now both
deceased, were among their children and herein represented by their heirs, petitioners
and respondents respectively. In 1919, a private deed of donation propter nuptias was
executed by spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante in favor of Marcelino Doronio
and the latters wife on the subject property which was occupied by both parties for
several decades. Petitioners now claim ownership of the land in view of the private deed
of donation propter nuptias in favor of their predecessors, Marcelino Doronio and wife.
Respondents, on the other hand, contends that they acquired one-half of the property
covered by OCT No. 352 by tradition and/or intestate succession; that the deed of
donation was null and void; that assuming that the deed of donation was valid, only onehalf of the property was actually donated to Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico; and
that respondents acquired ownership of the other half portion of the property by
acquisitive prescription and that the subject land is different from what was donated as
the descriptions of the property under OCT No. 352 and under the private deed of
donation were different.. Petitioners filed before RTC in Urdaneta, Pangasinan a petition
"For the Registration of a Private Deed of Donation". Petition was granted and TCT
4481 issued to petitioners. Respondents MR denied. Respondents, in turn, filed an
action for reconveyance and damages with prayer for preliminary injunction against
petitioner. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner heirs of Marcelino Doronio. CA reversed RTC.
Hence, this petition with petitioners contending that the RTC no jurisdiction to hear the
case since issues on Impairment of Legitime Should Be Threshed Out in a Special
Proceeding, Not in Civil Action for Reconveyance and Damages.

ISSUE:
Can the respondents be bound by the decision in the petition even if they were not
made parties in the said case.

HELD:
Petitioners cannot use the finality of the RTC decision in Petition Case No. U-920 as a
shield against the verification of the validity of the deed of donation. According to
petitioners, the said final decision is one for quieting of title. In other words, it is a case
for declaratory relief under Rule 64 (now Rule 63) of the Rules of Court. Suits to quiet
title are technically not suits in rem nor are they, strictly speaking in personam, but being
against the person in respect of the res, these proceedings are characterized as quasi
in rem. The judgments in such proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. Thus
respondents are not bound by the decision in Petition Case No. U920 as they were not
made parties in the said case. The rules on quieting of title expressly provide that any
declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who are not parties to the
action. That respondent filed subsequent pleading in the same Petition Case No. U920
after the decision there had become final did not change the fact that said decision
became final without their being impleaded in the case. Said subsequent pleading was
dismissed on the ground of finality of the decision.

63. In Re-Petition for Habeas Corpus of Capt. Gary Alejano, Pn, Et. Al. V. Gen.
Pedro Cabuay,Et Al., GR 160792, August 25, 2005

FACTS:
A directive was issued to all Major Service Commanders to take into custody the military
personnel under their command who took part in the Oakwood incident. Petitioners filed
a petition for habeas corpus with SC. The SC issued a resolution, which required
respondents to make a return of the writ and to appear and produce the persons of the
detainees before the CA. CA dismissed the petition because the detainees are already
charged of coup detat. Habeas corpus is unavailing in this case as the detainees
confinement

is

under

valid

indictment.

ISSUE: What is the objective of the writ of habeas corpus?

HELD: The duty to hear the petition for habeas corpus necessarily includes the
determination of the propriety of the remedy. The remedy of habeas corpus has one
objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person. The purpose of the writ is to
determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of his liberty. If the inquiry reveals
that the detention is illegal, the court orders the release of the person. If, however, the
detention is proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. The use of
habeas corpus is thus very limited. It is not a writ of error. Neither can it substitute for an
appeal.