Civil Procedure - 038

PATRICIA NATCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 on the decision of the Court of
Appeals

Doctrine: The RTC is devoid of authority, acting in its general jurisdiction, to render
an adjudication and resolve the issue of advancement of the real property in favor
of the petitioner Natcher since the case for reconveyance and annulment of title
with damages is not the proper vehicle to thresh out said question. RTC Manila
Branch 55 was not properly constituted as a probate court.

Facts:
- Spouses Graciano del Rosario and Graciana Esguerra were the owners of a
parcel of land in Manila which, upon the death of Graciano, became the
subject of an extrajudicial settlement leading to its division between the six
children and Graciano. Graciano received 8/14 of the property while the six
children received share each. Later on, in a separate agreement, Graciano
donated to his children a portion of his interest in the land. The land that
remained with him was further subdivided into two lots, with the first lot sold
to a third person. He retained ownership over the second lot.
- Graciano married Patricia Natcher and, during the marriage, he sold the
remaining lot he had to his wife. He died, leaving Patricia and his six children
as heirs. The children allege that, upon Gracianos death, Patricia through
fraud, misrepresentation and forgery, made it appear as if Graciano executed
a deed of Sale in her favor, effectively impairing their legitimes.
- Nacher acerred that she was legally married to Graciano and, under law, was
a compulsory heir of the latter. Since, during his lifetie, Graciano already
distributed properties to his children in advance, the children could no longer
claim against Gracianos estate.
- RTC Manila Branch 85 issued a ruling stating that the deed of sale is a
complete nullity since sale between spouses is prohibited by law but THAT,
the deed of sale may be regarded as a an extension of advance inheritence of
Patricia CA reversed and set aside the decision, ruling that it is the probate
court who has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution of
the estate and that the RTC, in 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 a
dead persons estate.
Issue/s:
- (1) May a Regional Trial Court acting as a court of general jurisdiction in an
action for reconveyance and 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/Ratio: Petition dismissed. CA decision AFFIRMED.

- (1) No, it may not.
o Sec 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure differentiate civil action
and special proceedings: An action is a formal demand of ones right in
a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law. It
is the method of applying legal remedies according to definite
established rules. The term special proceeding may be defined as an
application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party or
of a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings, no formal pleadings
are required unless the statute expressly procudes so and the remedy
is granted generally upon an application or motion.
Applying these principles,an action for reconveyance and
annulment of title with damages is a civil action whereas
matters relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased
person such as advancement of property made by the decedent,
partake the nature of a special proceeding with requires the
application of specific rules.
o Clearly, 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.
Under Section 2, Rule 90 of the ROC, questions 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 jusrisdiction of the estate proceedings and the final order
of the court thereon shall be binding on the persons raising the
questions.
o The RTC is devoid of authority, acting in its general jurisdiction, to
render an adjudication and resolve the issue of advancement of the
real property in favor of the petitioner Natcher since the case for
reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is not the proper
vehicle to thresh out said question. RTC Manila Brahc 55 was not
roperly constitueted as a probate court.
Digested by: Pauline Marie R. Gairanod (A2015)