I.

Special Proceedings in General

Rombe vs Asiatrust
SUMMARY: Rombe filed a Petition for the Declaration of a State of
Suspension of Payments with Approval of Proposed Rehabilitation Plan
with the Malolos RTC, Branch 7. Branch 7 issued a Stay Order
suspending enforcement of claims, but later dismissed the case
because of misrepresentations in the petition, and because Rombe was
insolvent. Anticipating a foreclosure proceeding by Asiatrust, one of its
creditors, Rombe filed a Complaint for Annulment of Documents and
Damages with Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and
Injunction, which was raffled to Branch 15, which granted a writ of
preliminary injunction in favor of Rombe. Rombe argued that the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by Branch 15 does not affect in any way
the Branch 7 Order since the two cases involve separate and distinct
causes of action. The SC agreed, but for a different reason. The petition
for rehabilitation was a special proceeding, which the SC has clarified
in an A.M. and thus it need not state a cause of action. Thus the writ
did not affect in anyway the earlier Branch 7 Order.
DOCTRINE:
Special proceeding: summary and non-adversarial in nature, not
needing a statement of a cause of action. It is one that seeks to
establish the status of a party or a particular fact.
As provided in section 1, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules on Corporate
Recovery, the status or fact sought to be established is the
inability of the corporate debtor to pay its debts when they fall
due so that a rehabilitation plan, containing the formula for the
successful recovery of the corporation, may be approved in the
end. It does not seek a relief from an injury caused by another
party. Hence, a petition for rehabilitation need not state a cause
of action
II. Special Proceedings under the Rules of Court
A. Settlement of Estates
1. Venue and Jurisdiction
Garcia Fule vs CA
SUMMARY: Virginia Fule filed with the CFI of Laguna a petition for
letters administration for the estate of Amado. She alleged that Amado
owned property in Laguna, and that Amado was a Constitutional
Delegate for Laguna, and that his last place of residence is Laguna.
Preciosa Garcia opposed the petition saying that Amado's last place of
residence is not in Laguna, but is rather in Quezon City. SC ruled that in
the present case, evidence shows that Amado's last place of residence
was in Quezon City. Thus, the venue was improperly laid in Laguna.

DOCTRINE: Sec 1 Rule 73 prescribes the venue for the settlement of a

decedent's estate as the province in which he resides at the time of his
death. The term resides means actual residence as distinguished
from legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily
presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires
bodily presence and also an intention to make the place one's domicile.
No particular length of time of residence is required; however, the
residence must be more than temporary.
Jao vs CA
SUMMARY: Rodolfo filed a motion to dismiss his brother Perico's petition
for the issuance of letters of administration of their parents estate, on
the ground of improper venue. However, SC did not find merit in his
claim that it is the domicile of his deceased parents which should
actually be considered in determining the proper venue and not the
residence at the time of their death. SC held that Rule 73 Sec 1
contemplated actual and not legal residence.
DOCTRINE: Venue for civil actions and that for special proceedings
have one and the same meaning. "Residence" in the context of venue
provisions means nothing more than a person's actual residence or
place of abode, provided he resides therein with continuity and
consistency.
Lee vs CA
Summary: While the estate proceeding of his father was pending,
Tabada sold all his rights and interests over the estate to Lee and
Raganas. After the estate proceeding was terminated, Tabada again
sold all his rights and interests over the estate to spouses Saldana.
When 3 new properties allegedly belonging to the estate were found,
Tabada again sold his share to the spouses Saldana, who sold such
share to Villareal and Tan. Lee and Raganas then filed an action to
quiet title over the 3 new parcels of land sold by Tabada to spouses
Saldana, with Constancio Cabreros later also claiming ownership over
said parcels of land. The CFI in the action to quiet title archived said
case and directed the reopening of estate proceedings. The SC ruled
that the CFI in the action to quiet title should have ruled on the issue of
ownership, instead of directing to reopen the estate proceedings.
Doctrine:
Probate courts have no jurisdiction to determine with finality
conflicts of ownership.
A question of ownership must be litigated in a separate action,
except where a party merely prays for the inclusion or exclusion
from the inventory of any particular property, in which case the
probate court may pass upon provisionally the question of

inclusion or exclusion, but without prejudice to its final

determination in an appropriate action
Valera vs Inserto
SUMMARY: In a special proceeding re the settlement of estate of Sps
Rafael Valera and Consolacion Sarrosa, there were conflicting claims
over a fishpond. The administrators of the estate aver that such
property must be returned to the estate for them to render accounting,
while the heirs of a daughter (Teresa) of the spouses and their lessee,
aver that the property is owned by the heirs of Teresa. The Probate
Court thus issued an order which was merely provisional in character,
ordering the heirs to reconvey the fishpond. The motion for execution
of such order was granted. The heirs and the lessee thus questioned
the jurisdiction of the Probate Court to resolve ownership of the
fishpond. CA ruled in their favor. The administrators then filed
petitions. SC dismissed the petitions and HELD that the Probate Courts
order was not for the purpose of settling the issue definitely and
permanently, but merely to determine whether it should or should not
be included in the inventory.
DOCTRINE:
GENERAL RULE: A CFI (now RTC), acting as a Probate Court,
exercises but limited jurisdiction, and thus has no power to take
cognizance of and determine the issue of title to property
claimed by a third person adversely to the decedent, unless:
EXCEPTIONS:
o the claimant and all the other parties having legal interest
in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the
submission of the question to the Probate Court for
adjudgment, OR
o the interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced
Coca vs Pangilinan
SUMMARY: Sps. Pangilinan died intestate and were survived by their
heirs - Prima, children of Concepcion and children of Francisco. A
special proceeding for the settlement of their estate was instituted in
the CFI which included a homestead consisting of 2 parcels of land. A
motion was filed to exclude 12 ha of the land. CFI, acting as a probate
court, excluded 18 hectares from the inventory. The administrator then
presented a project of partition which was opposed by the heirs of
Francisco since the share of Prima and heirs of Concepcion are larger
than theirs. CFI deferred action on the project of partition until
determined in an ordinary, separate action. CFI thereafter approved
the project partition but excluded the 12 ha being claimed by
Franciscos heirs. Coca argues that CFI, acting as a probate court,
cannot exclude the 12 ha since it has no jurisdiction to decide the

ownership of the 12-ha portion of Lot No. 1112. HELD: CFI has
jurisdiction. As a general rule, a probate court may not decide a
question of title or ownership and should be ventilated in a separate
action. The exception is when the probate court had already received
evidence on the ownership of the 12-hectare portion during the
hearing of the motion for its exclusion from the inventory and the only
interested parties are the heirs who have all appeared in the intestate
proceeding. Francisco Pangilinan should file in the intestate
proceeding, a motion in the form of a complaint wherein they should
set forth their claim for the 12 ha in question.
DOCTRINE: Whether a particular matter should be resolved by the CFI
in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited probate
jurisdiction is in reality not a jurisdictional question. In essence, it is a
procedural question involving a mode of practice "which may be
waived. The probate court may provisionally pass upon the question of
inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property
without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action.
Portugal vs Portugal-Beltran
SUMMARY: Jose Portugal had 2 marriages. Petitioners were his wife and
son from 2nd marriage while respondent was his child from 1st
marriage. When Portugal died intestate, respondent executed an
Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person,
adjudicating to herself the Caloocan parcel of land. The Petitioners
then filed annulment of the said affidavit as well as the newly issued
TCT in the name of respondent. An issue then arose on W/N petitioners
have to institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs
before they can pursue the case for annulment of respondents
Affidavit. This court ruled that to institute a special proceeding is
impractical in this case. There is no compelling reason to still subject
Portugals estate to administration proceedings since a determination
of petitioners status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed
by petitioners.
DOCTRINE:
If adverse parties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent
or parties to the special proceedings for its settlement, and
special proceedings are pending, or if there are no special
proceedings filed but there is, under the circumstances of the
case, a need to file one, then the determination of, among other
issues, heirship should be raised and settled in said special
proceedings.
Where special proceedings had been instituted but had been
finally closed and terminated, however, or if a putative heir has
lost the right to have himself declared in the special proceedings
as co-heir and he can no longer ask for its re- opening, then an
ordinary civil action can be filed for his declaration as heir in

order to bring about the annulment of the partition or distribution

or adjudication of a property or properties belonging to the
estate of the deceased.
Heirs of Gabatan vs CA
SUMMARY: Lourdes Pacana filed an action to recover a piece of
property which she allegedly owned and had inherited from her
grandfather, Juan, under whose name the land was registered. The
land was in the possession of the Heirs of Teofilo, brother of Pacanas
alleged grandfather. The SC relaxed the rules on determination of
status and ruled that Lourdes was not the sole heir of Juan, as she had
not provided any reliable and credible evidence on which to base her
claim.
DOCTRINE: 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. 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.
Gregorio vs Madarang
summary: In the intestate proceedings of the estate of Casimiro Sr, his
son Jose insists of the inclusion of Lot 829B4B in the inventory. Vicente,
together w his other siblings, insist that it was given to him by way of
donation. RTC ordered exclusion. CA agreed but granted Joses petition
to withdraw. petitioners filed an MR questioning the withdrawal. CA
upheld withdrawal as well as exclusion. petitioners contend that CA
should not have ruled on exclusion. SC held it was proper as it was
included in petitioners prayer. SC also held that the property should be
included as it was a donation inter vivos
doctrine: While a probate court, being of special and limited
jurisdiction, cannot act on questions of title and ownership, it can, for
purposes of inclusion or exclusion in the inventory of properties of a
decedent, make a provisional determination of ownership, without
prejudice to a final determination through a separate action in a court
of general jurisdiction.
2. Summary Settlement of Estates
Pereira vs CA
SUMMARY: Andres died intestate and was survived by his wife of 10
months and his sister. His sister filed for the issuance of letters of
administration for his estate in her favor. The wife opposed, contending
that there was no estate left. The SC ruled that even if there was
estate left, administration is not proper as there is no good and
compelling reason.

DOCTRINE:
General rule: Administration.
Exception: R 74 S 1 (heirs of lawful age, no debts due
from the estatethey may agree in writing to partition property
without judicial administration)
In the case of the exception, an administration proceeding is allowed
only when a good and compelling reason exists.