G.R. No.
198680 July 8, 2013 The Issue Before the Court
HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON, NAMELY, ALVARO YPON,
ERUDITA Y. BARON, CICERO YPON, WILSON YPON, VICTOR
YPON, AND HINIDINO Y. PEÑALOSA, PETITIONERS,
vs.
GAUDIOSO PONTERAS RICAFORTE A.K.A. "GAUDIOSO E.
YPON," AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TOLEDO
CITY, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is a direct recourse to the Court from the Regional Trial Court of
Toledo City, Branch 59 (RTC), through a petition for review on
certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising a pure question
of law. In particular, petitioners assail the July 27, 20112 and August
31, 20113 Orders of the RTC, dismissing Civil Case No. T-2246 for lack
of cause of action.
The Facts
On July 29, 2010, petitioners, together with some of their cousins,4 filed
a complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance with Damages
(subject complaint) against respondent Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte
a.k.a. "Gaudioso E. Ypon" (Gaudioso), docketed as Civil Case No. T-
2246.5 In their complaint, they alleged that Magdaleno Ypon
(Magdaleno) died intestate and childless on June 28, 1968, leaving
behind Lot Nos. 2-AA, 2-C, 2-F, and 2-J which were then covered by
Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-44 and T-77-A.6 Claiming to
be the sole heir of Magdaleno, Gaudioso executed an Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication and caused the cancellation of the aforementioned
certificates of title, leading to their subsequent transfer in his name
under TCT Nos. T-2637 and T-2638,7 to the prejudice of petitioners
who are Magdaleno’s collateral relatives and successors-in-interest.8
In his Answer, Gaudioso alleged that he is the lawful son of Magdaleno
as evidenced by: (a) his certificate of Live Birth; (b) two (2) letters from
Polytechnic School; and (c) a certified true copy of his
passport.9 Further, by way of affirmative defense, he claimed that: (a)
petitioners have no cause of action against him; (b) the complaint fails
to state a cause of action; and (c) the case is not prosecuted by the
real parties-in-interest, as there is no showing that the petitioners have
been judicially declared as Magdaleno’s lawful heirs.10
The RTC Ruling
On July 27, 2011, the RTC issued the assailed July 27, 2011
Order,11 finding that the subject complaint failed to state a cause of
action against Gaudioso. It observed that while the plaintiffs therein
had established their relationship with Magdaleno in a previous special
proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration, 12 this did not
mean that they could already be considered as the decedent’s
compulsory heirs. Quite the contrary, Gaudioso satisfactorily
established the fact that he is Magdaleno’s son – and hence, his
compulsory heir – through the documentary evidence he submitted
which consisted of: (a) a marriage contract between Magdaleno and
Epegenia Evangelista; (b) a Certificate of Live Birth; (c) a Letter dated
February 19, 1960; and (d) a passport.13
The plaintiffs therein filed a motion for reconsideration which was,
however, denied on August 31, 2011 due to the counsel’s failure to
state the date on which his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
Certificate of Compliance was issued.14
Aggrieved, petitioners, who were among the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.
T-2246,15 sought direct recourse to the Court through the instant
petition.
The core of the present controversy revolves around the issue of
whether or not the RTC’s dismissal of the case on the ground that the
subject complaint failed to state a cause of action was proper.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another.16 It is well-settled that the existence of a
cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. 17 In
this relation, a complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if,
admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff
would be entitled to the relief prayed for.18Accordingly, if the allegations
furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the
same should not be dismissed, regardless of the defenses that may be
averred by the defendants.19
As stated in the subject complaint, petitioners, who were among the
plaintiffs therein, alleged that they are the lawful heirs of Magdaleno
and based on the same, prayed that the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
executed by Gaudioso be declared null and void and that the transfer
certificates of title issued in the latter’s favor be cancelled. While the
foregoing allegations, if admitted to be true, would consequently
warrant the reliefs sought for in the said complaint, the rule that the
determination of a decedent’s lawful heirs should be made in the
corresponding special proceeding20 precludes the RTC, in an ordinary
action for cancellation of title and reconveyance, from granting the
same. In the case of Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. CA,21 the Court, citing
several other precedents, held that the determination of who are the
decedent’s lawful heirs must be made in the proper special proceeding
for such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership
and/or possession, as in this case:
Jurisprudence dictates that 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.1âwphi1 This must take precedence over the
action for recovery of possession and ownership. The Court has
consistently ruled that 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. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the
1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which
a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a
remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship
can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners
here are seeking the establishment of a status or right.
In the early case of Litam, et al. v. Rivera, this Court ruled that the
declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding, and not
in an independent civil action. This doctrine was reiterated in Solivio v.
Court of Appeals x x x:
In the more recent case of Milagros Joaquino v. Lourdes Reyes, the
Court reiterated its ruling that matters relating to the rights of filiation
and heirship must be ventilated in the proper probate court in a special
proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such
rights. Citing the case of Agapay v. Palang, this Court held that the
status of an illegitimate child who claimed to be an heir to a decedent's
estate could not be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action which, as in
this case, was for the recovery of property.22 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
By way of exception, the need to institute a separate special
proceeding for the determination of heirship may be dispensed with for
the sake of practicality, as when the parties in the civil case had
Page 1 of 7
voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented
their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had
consequently rendered judgment thereon,23 or when a special
proceeding had been instituted but had been finally closed and
terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened.24
In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or those of similar
nature, appear to exist. Hence, there lies the need to institute the
proper special proceeding in order to determine the heirship of the
parties involved, ultimately resulting to the dismissal of Civil Case No.
T-2246.
Verily, while a court usually focuses on the complaint in determining
whether the same fails to state a cause of action, a court cannot
disregard decisions material to the proper appreciation of the questions
before it.25 Thus, concordant with applicable jurisprudence, since a
determination of heirship cannot be made in an ordinary action for
recovery of ownership and/or possession, the dismissal of Civil Case
No. T-2246 was altogether proper. In this light, it must be pointed out
that the RTC erred in ruling on Gaudioso’s heirship which should, as
herein discussed, be threshed out and determined in the proper
special proceeding. As such, the foregoing pronouncement should
therefore be devoid of any legal effect.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The dismissal of Civil Case No.
T-2246 is hereby AFFIRMED, without prejudice to any subsequent
proceeding to determine the lawful heirs of the late Magdaleno Ypon
and the rights concomitant therewith.
SO ORDERED.
SIGUION REYNA MONTECILLO AND ONGSIAKO LAW
OFFICES, Petitioners, v. HON. NORMA CHIONLO-SIA, IN
HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 56
OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, AND
THE TESTATE ESTATE OF DECEASED SUSANO
RODRIGUEZ, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATRIX, Respondents.
DECISION
JARDELEZA, J.:
We resolve the core issue of whether a law firm acting as
counsel for one of the parties in the intestate proceedings a
quo can file a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals to protect its own interests.
I also represented by SRMO.18
Petitioner Siguion Reyna Montecillo & Ongsiako Law Offices
(SRMO) acted as counsel for Remedios N. Rodriguez
(Remedios) when she commenced an action for the intestate
settlement of the estate of her deceased husband Susano J.
Rodriguez before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena
City. Her action was docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 4440.1 During
the pendency of the intestate proceedings, Remedios asked
for the payment of widow's allowance. This, however, was
denied by the RTC in an Order dated August 8, 1983.2 On
review, the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated a decision
reversing the RTC's Order and granted Remedios a monthly
widow's allowance of P3,000.00 effective August 1982.3
On February 29, 1988, while the case was pending before the
CA, Remedios executed a Deed of Sale of Inheritance (Deed
of Sale) wherein she agreed to sell all her rights, interests
and participation in the estate of Susano J. Rodriguez to a
certain Remigio M. Gerardo (Gerardo) in consideration of
P200,000.00.4
As a condition subsequent to the sale, Remedios, on March 1,
1988, executed a special power of attorney5 (SPA) authorizing
Gerardo to, among others, "receive from any person, entity,
government agency or instrumentality, or from any court, any
property, real or personal, cash, checks or other commercial
documents which may be due to me or payable to me by
virtue of any contract, inheritance or any other legal means,"
and to "receive said property... in his own name and for his
own account and to deposit the same at his sole discretion for
his own account, and dispose of [the] same without any
limitation."6 Gerardo later on executed a document titled as
"Substitution of Attorney-in-Fact,"7 where he designated
SRMO as substitute attorney pursuant to the power of
substitution granted to him in the earlier SPA. Gerardo
subsequently executed his own SPA authorizing SRMO "[t]o
appear... and represent [Gerardo] in any and all proceedings
and incidents in the aforementioned case."8
After the CA's decision regarding the widow's allowance
became final and executory, SRMO, on April 24, 1991,
accordingly filed a motion with the RTC for the payment of
the allowance then amounting to a total of P315,000.00.9 A
few months after, the Estate of Deceased Susano J. Rodriguez
(Estate) remitted to SRMO three (3) checks totaling this
amount.10
A Partial Project of Partition of the Estate dated January 10,
199711 was approved by the RTC on January 20,
1997.12 Sometime in 2002, Remedios filed an "Urgent
Omnibus Motion and Notice of Termination of the Services of
Petitioner's Counsel of Record."13 Therein, Remedios
questioned the RTC's Order approving the partition and
denied the execution of the Deed of Sale in favor of Gerardo.
She also demanded that SRMO return the amount it received
from the partition.14 Before the motion could be resolved,
however, Remedios filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the same
motion.15
The withdrawal of the motion notwithstanding, the RTC, in an
Order dated August 21, 2003, motu proprio directed SRMO to
reimburse the Estate the amount of P315,000.00 representing
the widow's allowance it received in 1991.16
In its Explanation with Motion to Excuse
Reimbursement,17 SRMO moved to be excused from
reimbursing the Estate. According to SRMO, when it sought
the payment of the widow's allowance, it was merely seeking
the enforcement of a judgment credit in favor of its client,
Remedios, who had, in turn, sold her interests to Gerardo,
In its Order dated December 22, 2003, the RTC denied
SRMO's motion.19 It disagreed with SRMO's position because
(1) "the sale of inheritance was never made known" to the
RTC and that (2) the sale cannot comprehend a widow's
allowance because such allowance is "personal in nature."20
Aggrieved by the RTC's orders, SRMO elevated the case to
the CA through a petition for certiorari.21SRMO argued that it
merely acted as representative of Gerardo, Remedios'
successor-in-interest, when it received the sum corresponding
to the widow's allowance.22 Without going into the merits of
Page 2 of 7
the case, however, the CA denied SRMO's petition on the
ground that the latter was not a party in the case before the
lower court and therefore had no standing to question the
assailed order.23 The CA later denied SRMO's motion for
reconsideration.24
SRMO is now before this Court contending that while it was
not a party in the intestate proceedings, it is nevertheless an
"aggrieved party" which can file a petition for certiorari. It
claims that the RTC's order of reimbursement violated SRMO's
right to due process. SRMO further argues that the RTC erred
in ordering it to reimburse the widow's allowance since SRMO
received said allowance only in favor of Gerardo as buyer of
Remedios' interests pursuant to the Deed of Sale.
In its Comment, the Estate maintains that SRMO has no
standing to file the petition for certiorari as it is not "the real
party in interest who stands to lose or gain from the verdict
[that] the Court may hand in the case at bar."25 Having only
acted in the proceedings below as counsel for Remedios and,
upon transfer of interest, for Gerardo, SRMO had no
personality independent of its client.26 Recognizing that SRMO
received the amount not for its own benefit but only in
representation of its client, the Estate claims that SRMO is
only being made to return the amount it received for and in
behalf of its client; it is not being made to pay out of its own
pocket.27 The Estate also asserts that since Remedios already
sold her share in the estate to Gerardo on February 29, 1988,
she was no longer entitled to any widow's allowance from that
time on.28chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
II
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides in
full:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying
that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting
such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of
the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and
a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The "aggrieved party" referred to in the above-quoted
provision is one who was a party to the original proceedings
that gave rise to the original action for certiorari under Rule
65. In Tang v. Court of Appeals,29 we
explained:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Although Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that the special civil
action of certiorari may be availed of by a "person aggrieved"
by the orders or decisions of a tribunal, the term "person
aggrieved" is not to be eonstrued to mean that any
person who feels injured by the lower court's order or
decision can question the said court's disposition
via certiorari. To sanction a contrary interpretation would
open the floodgates to numerous and endless litigations which
would undeniably lead to the clogging of court dockets and,
more importantly, the harassment of the party who prevailed
in the lower court.
In a situation wherein the order or decision being
questioned underwent adversarial proceedings before a
trial court, the "person aggrieved" referred to under
Section 1 of Rule 65 who can avail of the special civil
action of certioraripertains to one who was a party in
the proceedings before the lower court. The correctness
of this interpretation can be gleaned from the fact that a
special civil action for certiorari may be dismissed motu
proprio if the party elevating the case failed to file a motion
for reconsideration of the questioned order or decision before
the lower court. Obviously, only one who was a party in the
case before the lower court can file a motion for
reconsideration since a stranger to the litigation would
not have the legal standing to interfere in the orders or
decisions of the said court. In relation to this, if a non-
party in the proceedings before the lower court has no
standing to file a motion for reconsideration, logic would lead
us to the conclusion that he would likewise have no standing
to question the said order or decision before the appellate
court via certiorari.30chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(Emphasis supplied.)
The general rule, therefore, is that a person not a party to
the proceedings in the trial court cannot maintain an action
for certiorari in the CA or the Supreme Court to have the
order or decision of the trial court reviewed. Under normal
circumstances, the CA would have been correct in dismissing
a petition for certiorari filed by a non-party. The peculiar facts
of this case, however, call for a less stringent application of
the rule.
The facts show that SRMO became involved in its own
capacity only when the RTC ordered it to return the money
that it received on behalf of its client. The order of
reimbursement was directed to SRMO in its personal
capacity—not in its capacity as counsel for either Remedios or
Gerardo. We find this directive unusual because the order for
reimbursement would typically have been addressed to the
parties of the case; the counsel's role and duty would be to
ensure that his client complies with the court's order. The
underlying premise of the RTC's order of reimbursement is
that, logically, SRMO kept or appropriated the money. But the
premise itself is untenable because SRMO never claimed the
amount for its own account. In fact, it is uncontroverted that
SRMO only facilitated the transfer of the amount to Gerardo.31
Under the law of agency, an agent is not personally liable for
the obligations of the principal unless he performs acts
outside the scope of his authority or he expressly binds
himself to be personally liable.32Otherwise, the principal is
solely liable. Here, there was no showing that SRMO bound
itself personally for Gerardo's obligations. SRMO also acted
within the bounds of the authority issued by Gerardo, as the
transferee pendente lite of the widow's interest, to receive the
payment.33
It appears that the RTC's primary justification for ordering
SRMO to return the money from its own pocket is due to the
latter's failure to formally report the transfer of interest from
Remedios to Gerardo.34 While it certainly would have been
prudent for SRMO to notify the RTC, the Rules of Court do not
require counsels of parties to report any transfer of interest.
The Rules do not even mandate the substitution of parties in
case of a transfer of interest. Rule 3, Section 19 of the Rules
of Court provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section. 19. Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of
interest, the action may be continued by or against the
original party, unless the court upon motion directs the
person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted
in the action or joined with the original party.cralawlawlibrary
Page 3 of 7
Otherwise stated, unless the court upon motion directs the
transferee pendente lite to be substituted, the action is simply
continued in the name of the original party. For all intents and
purposes, the Rules already consider Gerardo joined or
substituted in the proceeding a quo, commencing at the exact
moment when the transfer of interest was perfected between
original party-transferor, Remedios, and the
transferee pendente lite, Gerardo.35
Given the foregoing, we find that the RTC was unjustified in
ordering SRMO, in its own capacity, to return the money to
the Estate despite the fact, as certified to by Gerardo's heirs,
that SRMO had already accounted for all monies or funds it
had received on its client's behalf to Gerardo.36 If the RTC was
convinced that the Estate had a right to reimbursement, it
should have ordered the party who ultimately benefited from
any unwarranted payment—not his lawyer—to return the
money.
While the general rule laid down in Tang (which limits the
availability of the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 only to
parties in the proceedings before the lower court) must be
strictly adhered to, it is not without exception. In Republic v.
Eugenio, Jr.,37 we allowed the wife of a respondent in two
cases filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to
challenge via certiorari the inquiry orders issued by the
respective regional trial courts. There, we found that the wife
had adequately demonstrated her joint ownership of the
accounts subject of the inquiry orders. Thus, notwithstanding
the fact that she was not named as a respondent in the cases
filed by the AMLC or identified as a subject of the inquiry
orders, we ruled that her joint ownership of the accounts
clothed her with standing to assail, via certiorari, the inquiry
orders authorizing the examination of said accounts in
violation of her statutory right to maintain said accounts'
secrecy.38
Considering that the RTC's order of reimbursement is
specifically addressed to SRMO and the established fact that
SRMO only received the subject money in its capacity as
counsel/agent of Gerardo, there is then more reason to apply
the exception here. Unlike Tang, which involved neighboring
lot owners as petitioners, SRMO's interest can hardly be
considered as merely incidental. That SRMO is being required
to reimburse from its own coffers money already transmitted
to its client is sufficient to give SRMO direct interest to
challenge the RTC's order. Neither can SRMO be considered a
total stranger to the proceedings. We have stated in one case
that "a counsel becomes the eyes and ears in the prosecution
or defense of his or her client's case."39 This highly fiduciary
relationship between counsel and client makes the party/non-
party delineation prescribed by Tang inadequate in resolving
the present controversy.
As a corollary, we have, in a number of instances, ruled that
technical rules of procedures should be used to promote, not
frustrate, the cause of justice. Rules of procedure are tools
designed not to thwart but to facilitate the attainment of
justice; thus, their strict and rigid application may, for good
and deserving reasons, have to give way to, and be
subordinated by, the need to aptly dispense substantial
justice in the normal cause.40 In this case, ordering SRMO to
reimburse the widow's allowance from its own pocket would
result in the unjust enrichment of Gerardo, since the latter
would retain the money at the expense of his own counsel. To
avoid such injustice, a petition for certiorari is an adequate
remedy available to SRMO to meet the situation presented.
Another important consideration for allowing SRMO to file a
petition lor certiorari is the rule on real party in interest,
which is applicable to private litigation.41 A real party in
interest is one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit."42 In Ortigas & Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals,43 we
stated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
..."Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material
interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree,
as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved,
or a mere incidental interest. By real interest is meant a
present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere
expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or
consequential
interest.44ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarycralawlawlibrary
Simply put, a real party in interest is the person who will
suffer (or has suffered) the wrong. In this case, it is SRMO
who stands to be injured by the RTC's order of
reimbursement considering that it is being made to return
money received on behalf of, and already accounted to, its
client.
III
Section 3, Rule 83 of the Rules of Court45 provides for the
allowance granted to the widow and family of the deceased
person during the settlement of the estate. This allowance is
rooted on the right and duty to support under the Civil Code.
The right to support is a purely personal right essential to the
life of the recipient, so that it cannot be subject to attachment
or execution.46 Neither can it be renounced or transmitted to
a third person.47 Being intransmissible, support cannot be the
object of contracts.48Nonetheless, it has also been held that
support in arrears is a different thing altogether. It may be
compensated, renounced and transmitted by onerous or
gratuitous title.49
The Estate contends that since Remedios already sold her
Estate to Gerardo on February 29, 1988, she was no longer
entitled to any widow's allowance from that point on.50 SRMO,
on the other hand, maintains that the right of Remedios to
receive widow's allowance remains from 1988 up to 1991
because she remained a nominal party in the case, and that
this formed part of the interests sold to Gerardo.51
However, neither of the parties to the Deed of Sale is
impleaded in the present petition; hence, this particular issue
cannot be fully resolved. Following the principle of relativity of
contracts,52 the Deed of Sale is binding only between
Remedios and Gerardo, and they alone acquired rights and
assumed obligations thereunder. Any ruling that affects the
enforceability of the Deed of Sale will therefore have an effect
on their rights as seller and buyer, respectively. Both are,
therefore, indispensable parties insofar as the issue of
enforceability of the Deed of Sale is concerned.53 The failure
to implead them is fatal to the Estate's challenge on this
front.cralaw-red
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The September 24,
2007 Decision and December 28, 2007 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 83082 are SET ASIDE.
The Orders dated August 21, 2003 and December 22, 2003
issued by Branch 56 of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City
in Sp. Proc. No. 4440 are likewise SET ASIDE.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
G.R. No. L-18937 May 16, 1967
Page 4 of 7
INTESTATE ESTATE OF ENCARNACION ELCHICO VDA. DE
FERNANDO deceased
NATIVIDAD E. IGNACIO and LEONOR E.
ALMAZAN, administratrices-appellants,
vs.
EDUARDO ELCHICO and FLORENCIO ELCHICO, co-
administrators of the Estate of the Deceased Jose L.
Elchico, oppositors-appellees.
Paterno R. Canlas for administratrices-appellants.
San Juan, Africa and Benedicto for oppositor-appellee F. Elchico.
Salonga, Ordoñez, Sicat and Associates for oppositor-appellee E.
Elchico.
SANCHEZ, J.:
Major heirs, so-called, of the deceased Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de
Fernando, are: Jose Elchico, Salud Elchico Reyes and Natividad
Elchico Ignacio. On March 19, 1956, in the intestate proceedings for
the settlement of the estate of the said deceased Encarnacion Elchico
Vda. de Fernando,1 the three (3) heirs submitted a "joint petition for
partial partition and distribution" of the estate. This was approved by
the Manila probate court on April 3, 1956, upon a bond of P150,000.00
to answer for the obligations of the estate. This bond was filed on May
11, 1956. In consequence, the three (3) heirs entered into the
possession of their corresponding shares set forth in the partial
partition. To Jose L. Elchico went the Angat transportation business as
well as a parcel of land located on Misericordia Street, Manila.
Thereafter, Jose L. Elchico, one of the heirs, died. Settlement of his
estate is pending in a different court, the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, in two special proceedings, one testate and the other intestate. 2
In June, 1959, the Angat transportation business was sold by
appellees Eduardo Elchico and Florencio Elchico, the co-
administrators of Jose L. Elchico, upon the authority of the Rizal
probate court given in an order of April 29, 1959. The Misericordia
property remains under the administration of Jose L. Elchico's co-
administrators. In the court order just mentioned, the Rizal probate
court also granted authority to sell the Misericordia property.
Came the motion of appellants-administratrices of the intestate estate
of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando of March 16, 1961, filed with
the Manila probate court, which was supplemented by subsequent
pleadings. They pray that the Misericordia lot be turned over to said
administratrices, so that the charges which burden the estate (Estate
of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando) "corresponding to the heir
Dr. Jose L. Elchico may be satisfied therefrom, the balance to be
returned to his heirs." The administratrices claim that the obligations of
the estate — consisting of approved and pending claims in round
figures, amount to almost P400,000.00 (which includes a claim of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue for the balance of the estate and
inheritance taxes, more or less in the sum of P135,000.00 as of
February 13, 1961); that of the amount of P230,000.00, proceeds of
the sale of the Angat transportation business, nothing was turned over
to the estate of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando for the payment
of Jose L. Elchico's obligations in said estate; that Jose L. Elchico had
no other property except the Misericordia lot; that should the sale of
said lot be finally effected, the proceeds thereof could be hidden and
dissipated and the estate of Jose L. Elchico would not then be in a
position to comply with the latter's commitment in paragraph 3 of the
partial partition and distribution of March 19, 1958, approved by the
court as aforesaid, viz:
Par. 30. — That the above distribution shall not in any
manner affect the sufficiency or insufficiency for the payment
of any outstanding and/or future obligations and/or expenses
of the remaining estate and which are not, in any manner,
related to the above enumerated properties to be distributed.
However, in the remote event that such contingencies will
arise, the heirs shall all be bound to contribute equally in the
payment of said obligations and/or expenses of the estate;
but that the two other heirs of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando
are solvent "and can meet their respective shares of the obligations as
they arise."
The administrators of Jose L. Elchico opposed the motion. They say
that the proper procedure to be followed in the premises is outlined in
Section 6, Rule 89 of the 1940 Rules of Court. They aver that the
Manila probate court has no jurisdiction over the Misericordia lot which
is under the control of the Rizal probate court in two special
proceedings, testate and intestate, of the deceased Jose L. Elchico.
They point to the surety bond of P150,000.00, claim at that time that
the same was sufficient to meet the obligations of the estate of
Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando.
On May 12, 1961, the Manila probate court (Sp. Proc. 25256), acting
upon the motion and oppositions, issued the following order:
After considering the motion filed on March 16, 1961, by the
administratrices and it appearing that the opposition filed on
April 5, 1961, by Eduardo Elchico, the opposition filed on
April 13, 1961, by Florencio Elchico, and the supplemental
opposition filed on April 13, 1961, by Eduardo Elchico are
well-taken the Court hereby denies the motion under
consideration.
This proceeding is hereby set for hearing on June 1, 1961, at
8:30 a.m. for the purpose of determining how much and in
what manner heir Jose L. Elchico (now deceased) shall
contribute for the payment of the unsettled and unpaid
creditors' claims and taxes.
The move to reconsider was rejected by the said court in its order of
June 29, 1961.
The case is now before us on the administratrices' appeal from the last
two named orders.
1. Section 6, Rule 88 of the Rules of Court, 3 reads:
SEC. 6. Court to fix contributive shares where devisees,
legatees, or heirs have been in possession. — Where
devisees, legatees, or heirs have entered into possession of
portions of the estate before the debts and expenses have
been settled and paid, and have become liable to contribute
for the payment of such debts and expenses, the court
having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that
purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of their several
liabilities, and order how much and in what manner each
person shall contribute, and may issue execution as
circumstances require.
Concededly, in the situation here presented, where partial partition and
distribution were effected, it is within the power of the Manila probate
court to issue the order of May 12, 1961 heretofore transcribed. In fact,
said disputed order of May 12, 1961 closely hewed the line set forth in
Section 6 of Rule 88. For, the court in denying the motion to have the
Misericordia property turned over to the estate, set the proceedings for
hearing precisely "for the purpose of determining how much and in
what manner heir Jose L. Elchico (now deceased) shall contribute for
the payment of the unsettled and unpaid creditors' claims and taxes."
The court's statutory authority conceded, we next look into the question
of whether there was reversible abuse of discretion. The record of this
case discloses that there is nothing definite as to the total liabilities of
the estate of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando. And, naturally,
Jose L. Elchico's share in those obligations is unknown, indefinite.
Page 5 of 7
 Again, while it is true that the administratrices aver that the only
remaining property of the estate is a "piece of unsurveyed and untitled
mineral land the value of which is unknown and on the security of
which no one is willing to advance a loan," this remains but an
allegation. And then, too, there is the P150,000.00-bond to answer for
the debts of Encarnacion's estate. On the assumption that the share in
the obligation corresponding to Jose L. Elchico is finally cleared up
after the projected hearing,4 then the provisions of Section 6, Rule 88,
once again comes into focus, because his obligation to contribute
becomes definite. The probate court, under this statute, may then
order that a writ of execution issue to compel the three (3) heirs to pay
their respective shares in the obligation thus apportioned to the extent,
of course, of the properties that they received from the estate. 5 And,
such execution is an expedient remedy.6 Furthermore, once the total,
obligation of Jose L. Elchico is known after hearing, the Manila probate
court is not precluded from taking other steps towards the satisfaction
of his said obligation. Without such hearing, any order for the return of
property distributed may appear to be premature. More, the
administratrices, could easily go to the Rizal probate court for the
protection of Encarnacion's estate's claim against the estate of the
deceased Jose L. Elchico pending there.
In the posture thus presented, we are unprepared to say that the
Manila probate court committed a grave abuse of discretion, which is
such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. Citation of jurisprudence is unnecessary to show
that this Court should not interfere with the disputed order of May 12.
2. Another roadblock will prevent the grant of the administratrices
motion. That motion was filed in Special Proceedings 25256 of the
Court of First Instance of Manila (Intestate Estate of Encarnacion
Elchico Vda. de Fernando, deceased). The Misericordia property is
now in custodia legis of another court, namely, the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, acting as a probate court in two special proceedings
(2598, In re Testate Estate of Jose L. Elchico, deceased, and 2600, In
re Intestate Estate of Jose L. Elchico, deceased). The Rizal and Manila
courts are coordinate. They stand on the same level. The Manila court
then may not take that property out of the administration proceedings
in the Rizal court, without leave or consent of the latter. Should such
interference be sanctioned, confusion may ensue; the administration of
justice may be seriously impaired. At least out of respect for the
prerogatives of the Rizal court, the Manila court should not intermeddle
with the authority of the former. This is especially true here because
the Rizal probate court had already directed the sale of the very same
Misericordia property to satisfy amongst others the payment of Jose L.
Elchico's share in the estate and inheritance taxes due from the estate
of the deceased Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando. The Manila
probate court may not nullify this order of the Rizal probate court —
directly or indirectly.7
Xxxx
FIRST DIVISION
MA. CRISTINA TORRES BRAZA, PAOLO JOSEF T. G.R. No. 181174
BRAZA and JANELLE ANN T. BRAZA,
Petitioners, Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
CARPIO MORALES,the legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, hence, the controversy should be ventilated in an ordinary adversarial action.
BERSAMIN, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.
THE CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF HIMAMAYLAN
CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, minor PATRICK ALVIN
TITULAR BRAZA, represented by LEON TITULAR,
CECILIA TITULAR and LUCILLE C. TITULAR,
Respondents.
Promulgated:
December 4, 200
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Petitioner Ma. Cristina Torres (Ma. Cristina) and Pablo Sicad
Braza, Jr. (Pablo), also known as Pablito Sicad Braza, were married [1] on
January 4, 1978. The union bore Ma. Cristinas co-petitioners Paolo
Josef[2] and Janelle Ann[3] on May 8, 1978 and June 7, 1983, respectively, and
Gian Carlo[4] on June 4, 1980.
Pablo died[5] on April 15, 2002 in a vehicular accident in Bandung,
West Java, Indonesia.
During the wake following the repatriation of his remains to the
Philippines, respondent Lucille Titular (Lucille) began introducing her co-
respondent minor Patrick Alvin Titular Braza (Patrick) as her and Pablo's
son. Ma. Cristina thereupon made inquiries in the course of which she
obtained Patrick's birth certificate[6] from the Local Civil Registrar of
Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental with the following entries:
Name of Child: PATRICK ALVIN CELESTIAL
TITULAR
Date of Birth: 01 January 1996
Mother: Lucille Celestial Titular
Father: Pablito S. Braza
Date Received at the
Local Civil Registrar: January 13, 1997
Annotation: "Late Registration"
Annotation/Remarks: "Acknowledge (sic)
by the father Pablito Braza on January
13, 1997"
Remarks: Legitimated by virtue of
subsequent marriage of parents on April
22, 1998 at Manila. Henceforth, the child
shall be known as Patrick Alvin Titular
Braza (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Ma. Cristina likewise obtained a copy[7] of a marriage contract showing that
Pablo and Lucille were married on April 22, 1998, drawing her and her co-
petitioners to file on December 23, 2005 before the Regional Trial Court of
Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental a petition [8] to correct the entries in the
birth record of Patrick in the Local Civil Register.
Contending that Patrick could not have been legitimated by the
supposed marriage between Lucille and Pablo, said marriage being bigamous
on account of the valid and subsisting marriage between Ma. Cristina and
Pablo, petitioners prayed for (1) the correction of the entries in Patrick's birth
record with respect to his legitimation, the name of the father and
his acknowledgment, and the use of the last name "Braza"; 2) a directive to
Leon, Cecilia and Lucille, all surnamed Titular, as guardians of the minor
Patrick, to submit Parick to DNA testing to determine his paternity and
filiation; and 3) the declaration of nullity of the legitimation of Patrick as
stated in his birth certificate and, for this purpose, the declaration of the
marriage of Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.
On Patricks Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, the trial
court, by Order[9] of September 6, 2007, dismissed the petition without
prejudice, it holding that in a special proceeding for correction of entry, the
court, which is not acting as a family court under the Family Code, has no
jurisdiction over an action to annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn
Petitioners motion for reconsideration having been denied by
Order[10] of November 29, 2007, they filed the present petition for review.
Petitioners maintain that the court a quo may pass upon the
validity of marriage and questions on legitimacy even in an action to correct
entries in the civil registrar. Citing Cario v. Cario,[11] Lee v. Court of
Appeals[12] and Republic v. Kho,[13]they contend that even substantial errors,
such as those sought to be corrected in the present case, can be the subject of a
petition under Rule 108.[14]
Page 6 of 7
The petition fails. In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule
108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Original Registry), the trial
court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and
filiation.

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis Article 412 of the Civil
Code[15] charts the procedure by which an entry in the civil registry may be
cancelled or corrected. The proceeding contemplated therein may generally be
used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous
errors in the civil registry. A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes
or obvious to the understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a
mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless change such as a correction of
name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the
parent. Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in
adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due
process is properly observed.[16]

The allegations of the petition filed before the trial court clearly
show that petitioners seek to nullify the marriage between Pablo and Lucille
on the ground that it is bigamous and impugn Patricks filiation in connection
with which they ask the court to order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test.

Petitioners insist, however, that the main cause of action is for the
correction of Patricks birth records[17] and that the rest of the prayers are
merely incidental thereto.

Petitioners position does not lie. Their cause of action is actually to

seek the declaration of Pablo and Lucilles marriage as void for being
bigamous and impugn Patricks legitimacy, which causes of action are
governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which took effect on
March 15, 2003, and Art. 171[18] of the Family Code, respectively, hence, the
petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly provided in said Code.

It is well to emphasize that, doctrinally, validity of marriages as

well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action
seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack such as
the petition filed before the court a quo.
Petitioners reliance on the cases they cited is misplaced.

Cario v. Cario was an action filed by a second wife against the

first wife for the return of one-half of the death benefits received by the first
after the death of the husband. Since the second wife contracted marriage with
the husband while the latters marriage to the first wife was still subsisting, the
Court ruled on the validity of the two marriages, it being essential to the
determination of who is rightfully entitled to the death benefits.

In Lee v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that contrary to the

contention that the petitions filed by the therein petitioners before the lower
courts were actions to impugn legitimacy, the prayer was not to declare that
the petitioners are illegitimate children of Keh Shiok Cheng as stated in their
records of birth but to establish that they are not the latters children, hence,
there was nothing to impugn as there was no blood relation at all between

the petitioners and Keh Shiok Cheng. That is why the Court ordered the
cancellation of the name of Keh Shiok Cheng as the petitioners mother and
the substitution thereof with Tiu Chuan who is their biological mother. Thus,
the collateral attack was allowed and the petition deemed as adversarial
proceeding contemplated under Rule 108.

In Republic v. Kho, it was the petitioners themselves who sought

the correction of the entries in their respective birth records to reflect that they
were illegitimate and that their citizenship is Filipino, not Chinese, because
their parents were never legally married. Again, considering that the changes
sought to be made were substantial and not merely innocuous, the Court,
finding the proceedings under Rule 108 to be adversarial in nature, upheld the
lower courts grant of the petition.

It is thus clear that the facts in the above-cited cases are vastly different
from those obtaining in the present case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Page 7 of 7