1. PATRICIA NATCHER, petitioner, vs. HON.

COURT OFAPPEALS AND THE HEIR OF

GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO LETICIA DEL ROSARIO, EMILIA DEL RESORIO MANANGAN,
ROSALINDA FUENTES LLANA, RODOLFO FUENTES, ALBERTO FUENTES, EVELYN DEL
ROSARIO, and EDUARDO DEL ROSARIO, respondent..
[G.R. No. 133000, October 2, 2001, BUENA, J.:]
FACTS:
1 Spouses Graciano del Rosario and Graciana Esguerra were registered owners of a parcel of
land in Manila
2

Upon the death of Graciana in 1951, Graciano, together with his six children entered into an
extrajudicial settlement of Graciana's estate
a
b

3
4

5
6
7

They adjudicated and divided among themselves the real property

Under the agreement: Graciano received 8/14 share while each of the six children
received 1/14 share of the said property.
The heirs executed and forged an "Agreement of Consolidation-Subdivision of Real Property
with Waiver of Rights"
a they subdivided among themselves the parcel of land
Graciano then donated to his children, share and share alike, a portion of his interest in the
land amounting to 4,849.38 square meters leaving only 447.60 square meters registered
under Graciano's name
a The land was further subdivided into two separate lots
i Graciano sold the 1st lot to a third person but retained ownership over the 2 nd
lot
Graciano married petitioner Patricia Natcher
a He sold the 2nd lot to Natcher, a title was issued under her name.
Graciano dies leaving his 6 children and Natcher as heirs
A civil case was filed a complaint before the RTC of Manila by the 6 children
a REASONS
i Alleging that Natcher through the employment of fraud, misrepresentation
and forgery, acquired the 2nd lot by making it appear that Graciano executed
a Deed of Sale in her favour
ii Alleging that their legitimes have been impaired
b ANSWER OF NATCHER: she was legally married to Graciano in 20 March 1980 and
thus, under the law, she was likewise considered a compulsory heir of the latter.
c RTCs RULING:
i deed of sale executed by the late Graciano del Rosario in favor of Patricia
Natcher is prohibited by law and thus a complete nullity.
1 no evidence that a separation of property was agreed upon in the
marriage settlements or that there has been decreed a judicial
separation of property between them, the spouses are prohibited
from entering into a contract of sale
2 not a valid donation
3 can be regarded as an extension of advance inheritance of Patricia
Natcher being a compulsory heir of the deceased
CAs Ruling:
a probate court that has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution of
the estate.
b 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.

ISSUE: May a Regional Trial Court, acting as a court of general jurisdiction in an action for
reconveyance annulment of title with damages, adjudicate matters relating to the settlement of the
estate of a deceased person particularly on questions as to advancement of property made by the
decedent to any of the heirs?
HELD: NO. CA decision AFFIRMED.
1 Civil action vs- Special Proceeding

Civil Action

Special Proceedings

a formal demand of one's right in a court of justice

in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law.

as an application or proceeding to establish the status or

right of a party, or a particular fact.

method of applying legal remedies according to

definite established rules

no formal pleadings are required unless the statute

expressly so provides.
the remedy is granted generally upon an
application or motion

Special Proceedings defined:

a American Jurisprudence: proceedings which are not ordinary in this sense, but is
instituted and prosecuted according to some special mode as in the case of
proceedings commenced without summons and prosecuted without regular
pleadings, which are characteristics of ordinary actions.
i in the nature of a distinct and independent proceeding for particular relief,
such as may be instituted independently of a pending action, by petition or
motion upon notice."
CAB:
a an action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil action
b 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,
i requires the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
c 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.
d Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court: as to advancement made or alleged to
have been made by the deceased to any heir may be heard and determined by
the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the final order of the
court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on the heir.
e RTC is devoid of authority to render an adjudication and resolve the issue of
advancement of the real property in favor of Natcher in the case for reconveyace and
annulment of title with damages
f the RTC of Manila, Branch 55 was not properly constituted as a probate court so as
to validly pass upon the question of advancement made by the decedent Graciano
Del Rosario to his wife
g the present issue is a mere question of procedure which may be waived

i no waiver was done by the 6 children nor did they assail the authority of the
trail court, acting in its general jurisdiction, to rule on this specific issue of
advancement made by the decedent to petitioner.
ii Generally: a probate court may not decide a question of title or ownership
1 EXCEPTIONS: (effect= probate court is competent to decide the
question of ownership.)
a if the interested parties are all heirs
b question is one of collation or advancement
c parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired,

Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran
Facts:

On November 25, 1942, Jose Q. Portugal (Portugal) married Paz Lazo.

On May 22, 1948, Portugal married petitioner Isabel de la Puerta.
On September 13, 1949, petitioner Isabel gave birth to a boy whom she
named Jose Douglas Portugal Jr., her herein co-petitioner.
On April 11, 1950, Paz gave birth to a girl, Aleli, later baptized as Leonila
Perpetua Aleli Portugal, herein respondent.
On May 16, 1968, Portugal and his four (4) siblings executed a Deed of ExtraJudicial Partition and Waiver of Rights over the estate of their father, Mariano
Portugal, who died intestate on November 2, 1964. In the deed, Portugals
siblings waived their rights, interests, and participation over a 155 sq. m.
parcel of land located in Caloocan in his favor.
The Registry of Deeds for Caloocan City issued TCT in the name of Jose Q.
Portugal, married to Paz C. Lazo. Paz died. 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.
Petitioners then filed before the RTC of Caloocan City a complaint against
respondent for annulment of the Affidavit of Adjudication executed by her
and the transfer certificate of title issued in her name.
RTC, without resolving the issues raised during the pre-trial, dismissed the
case for lack of cause of action on the ground that petitioners status and
right as putative heirs had not been established before a probate (sic) court,
and lack of jurisdiction over the case. CA affirmed.

Issue:

Held:

In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or wrongly that she was the
sole heir to Portugals estate, executed on February 15, 1988 the questioned
Affidavit of Adjudication under the second sentence of Rule 74, Section 1 of
the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an exception to the general rule that
when a person dies leaving a property, it should be judicially administered
and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, in the
order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or in
case he did, he failed to name an executor therein.
A probate or intestate court, no doubt, has jurisdiction to declare who are the
heirs of a deceased.

In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being 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,[39] the trial court should
proceed to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the trial
and render a decision thereon upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.
Petition granted. Case was remanded to the trial court for it to evaluate the
evidence presented by the parties during the pre-trial.

TABUADA V. RUIZ (SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS)

While a compromise agreement or an amicable settlement is very strongly
encouraged, the failure to consummate one does not warrant any procedural
sanction, much less provide an authority for the court to jettison the case. Spec Pro
No. 5198 should not have been terminated or dismissed by the trial court on
account of the mere failure of the parties to submit the promised amicable
settlement and/or the Motion for Judgment Based on an Amicable Settlement. given
the non-contentious nature of special proceedings, which do not depend on the will
of an actor, but on a state or condition of things or persons not entirely within the
control of the parties interested, its dismissal should be ordered only in the extreme
case where the termination of the proceedings is the some remedy consistent with
equity and justice, but not as a penalty for neglect of the parties therein.
The third clause of Section 3, Rule 17, which authorizes the motu proprio dismissal
of a case if the plaintiff fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court,
cannot even be used to justify the convenient, though erroneous, termination of the
proceedings therein. An examination of the 6 December 2004 Order readily reveals
that the trial court neither required the submission of the amicable settlement or
the aforesaid Motion for Judgment, nor warned the parties that should they fail to
submit the compromise within the given period, their case would be dismissed.
Hence, it cannot be categorized as an order requiring compliance to the extent that
its defiance becomes an affront to the court and the rules. and even if it were
worded in coercive language, the parties cannot be forced to comply, for, as
aforesaid, they are only strongly encouraged, but are not obligated, to consummate
a compromise. an order requiring submission of an amicable settlement does not
find support in our jurisprudence and is premised on an erroneous interpretation
and application of the law and rules.
Lastly, the Court notes that inconsiderate dismissals neither constitute a panacea
nor a solution to the congestion of court dockets. While they lend a deceptive aura
of efficiency to records of individual judges, they merely postpone the ultimate
reckoning between the parties. In the absence of clear lack of merit or intention to
delay, justice is better served by a brief continuance, trial on the merits, and final
disposition of the cases before the court.