3/3/2019 Specpro_1-16_Arquillo - Google Docs
TOPIC: Sec 3, Rule 1; RTC; general jurisdic on Sps. Simeon died and le proper es to their
(1) Natcher v. CA, et. al.
Quick facts:
Graciano married Pe oner (2nd wife). During their
marriage, he sold a land to Natcher. Graciano died.
Respondents (heirs) filed a civil case against Natcher
w/ RTC bec Natcher acquired TCT through fraud. RTC:
deed of sale is prohibited by law, not a valid dona on
but an advance on Natcher’s inheritance.
Doctrine:
Sec 3, Rule 1 Civil Pro:
Civil ac on: a party sues another for the
enforcement or protec on of a right, or the
preven on or redress of a wrong
Special proceeding: a remedy by which a party seeks
to establish a status, a right or a par cular fact.
An ac on for reconveyance and annulment of tle
with damages is a civil ac on, whereas ma ers
rela ng to se lement of the estate of a deceased
person such as advancement of property made by
the decedent, is a special proceeding.
GR: RTC trying a civil ac on cannot pass upon
advancement of inheritance
RTC herein, in its general jurisdic on, (not as a
probate court) cannot render an adjudica on on
advancement of property to Natcher. Before a court
can make a par on, it must first se le the estate in
a special proceeding ins tuted for the purpose.
GR: (vice versa) A probate court may not decide a
ques on of tle or ownership
EXC: probate court is competent to decide the
ques on of ownership IF:
1. The interested par es are all heirs
2. The ques on is colla on or advancement
3. Par es consent to the assump on of jurisdic on
by the probate court
4. The rights of third par es are not impaired
TOPIC: RTC; general jurisdic on
(2) Heirs of Marcelino Doronio v. Heirs of Fortunato
Doronio
Quick facts:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/129DCkhwRl981Cx6jWKV_Zo2xJN22tVouphaXJNKzZjA/edit?fbclid=IwAR1nEWXYF03ohGxMY_7iD6fsfjCBEov1…
children, including Marcelino and Fortunato. Sps.
Simeon gave a dona on of land to Marcelino.
Pe oners (heirs of Marcelino) filed a pe on for
the registra on of the deed of dona on, which was
granted by RTC. Respondents (heirs of Fortunato)
filed an ac on for reconveyance and damages
against Pe oners, arguing that Sps. Simeon
intended to donate only ½ of the property. RTC ruled
for Pe oners and that the deed of dona on is valid.
CA reversed, ruling the inten on to donate only half
can be gleaned from the disparity of descrip ons in
the OCT and in the deed of dona on. Also, Sps. could
not have donated en re property bec it would impair
Fortunato’s legi me.
Doctrine:
Issues on impairment of legi me should be threshed
out in a special proceeding
and not in a civil ac on for reconveyance and
damages.
An ac on for reconveyance with damages is a civil
ac on.
Ma ers rela ng to se lement of the estate of a
deceased person such as advancement of property
made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a
special proceeding. Special proceedings require the
applica on of specific rules as provided for in the
Rules of Court.
TOPIC: wrt pleadings; RTC; general jurisdic on
(3) Natcher v. CA, et. Al, Id.
(repeated case)
TOPIC: Specpro has no adverse par es
(4) Montañer, et al v. Shariá District Court, et. al.
Quick facts:
Pe oner was married to the deceased, Montaner.
Respondents (Liling and daughter), both Muslims,
filed for par on w/ Shari’a District Court, docketed
as a “Special Civil Ac on” and impleaded Estate of
Montañer as defendant. Respondents allege that
Alejandro was a Muslim, that Liling is his widow, and
Almahleen is their daughter. SDC dismissed
respondents’ complaint. SDC granted respondents’
1/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_1-16_Arquillo - Google Docs
MR and allowed respondents to adduce further
evidence, and ordered con nua on of trial.
Hence, this pe on with pe oners arguing that the
proceeding before SDC is an ordinary civil ac on
against a deceased person and that the Estate of
Montañer is not a natural or juridical person w/
capacity to be sued. They argue that the prohibi on
against a decedent or his estate from being a party
defendant in a civil ac on applies to a special
proceeding such as the se lement of the estate of
the deceased.
Doctrine:
SDC acquired jurisdic on over the Estate of
Montaner. Although it was denominated as a special
civil ac on, the proceedings before SDC are for the
issuance of le ers of administra on, se lement, and
distribu on of the estate of the deceased, which is a
special proceeding.
The applicants seek to establish the fact
of death of the decedent and later to be recognized
as heirs, which would allow them to exercise their
right to par cipate in the se lement and liquida on
of the estate.
A civil ac on has adverse par es (plain ff or
defendant.
A special proceeding has one definite party, who
pe ons or applies for a declara on of a status,
right, or par cular fact, but no definite adverse party.
Montaner’s estate is not being sued by respondent
for any cause of ac on. As a special proceeding, the
purpose of the se lement of estate is to determine
all the assets of the estate, pay its liabili es,
and to distribute the residual to those en tled to the
same.
TOPIC: Probate court; claim of ownership
(5) De Borja v. Tan, et. al.
Quick facts:
Pe oner Ongsingco is the 2nd wife and judicial
guardian of Francisco de Borja who was declared
incompetent by CFI Rizal. Francisco is the surviving
spouse of Josefa Tangco (his 1st wife) whose estate is
https://docs.google.com/document/d/129DCkhwRl981Cx6jWKV_Zo2xJN22tVouphaXJNKzZjA/edit?fbclid=IwAR1nEWXYF03ohGxMY_7iD6fsfjCBEov1…
being se led in a Special Proceeding w/ the same
court. Respondent is Francisco’s son and
administrator of the estate of Josefa Tangco.
Francisco is the owner of 2 lands as inheritance from
his late father and as such form part of his separate
proper es. As guardian, pe oner took over
threshing of palay on the 2 lands. Respondent filed a
mo on in the estate proceedings praying Pe oner
be restrained from threshing palay un l the issue of
ownership is determined. RTC Rizal ordered
Pe oner not to thresh palay and ordered the
par es to try to find from among the policies, the 2
lands and to come to an agreement. Pe oner filed
an ac on w/ CFI Nueva Ecija to determine
ownership.
Doctrine:
The ques on of ownership of
property is one which should be determined in an
ordinary ac on and not in probate proceedings.
CFI Rizal ac ng as a probate court does not have
jurisdic on to pass upon ownership of land in the
estate proceedings of the late Josefa Tangco.
TOPIC: Intestate court; claim of ownership
(6) Pacioles, Jr. v. Chuatoco-Ching
Quick facts:
Pe oner’s wife died intestate. Pe oner filed w/
RTC a pe on for se lement of estate. Respondent,
who is the mother of the decedent, filed an
opposi on. Respondent said she had a direct interest
in the estate bec she gave her proper es to the
decedent on the condi on that both of them would
undertake a business as partners. Pe oner
submi ed to the RTC (intestate court) an inventory
of the decedent’s estate. Respondent’s son
(administrator) did not submit an inventory. RTC
declared pe oner and his 2 children as the only
compulsory heirs. Pe oner filed a mo on praying
for Par on. Respondent opposed bec par on is
premature considering there is no determina on of
ownership. RTC denied Pe oner’s prayer for
par on as premature and that RTC shall first resolve
respondent’s claim of ownership.
Doctrine:
2/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_1-16_Arquillo - Google Docs
GR: A trial court, ac ng as an intestate/ probate
court cannot pass upon ques ons of ownership
involving proper es claimed to be part of the
decedent’s estate. Why? Because it exercises special
and limited jurisdic on.
EXC: When its purpose is to determine WON a
property should be included in the inventory.
However, adjudica on is merely
incidental and provisional AKA not conclusive and
subject to the final decision
in a separate ac on to resolve tle.
Excep on does not apply. Respondent’s purpose was
to secure a final determina on of her claim of
ownership over proper es comprising the bulk of
Miguelita’s estate. RTC should have maintained a
hands-off stance. The par es should have resorted to
an ordinary ac on w/ an RTC exercising general
jurisdic on.
TOPIC: jurisdic on of the court
(7) Bolisay v. Alcid
Quick facts:
Pe oner and respondent administra x are
daughters of the deceased. Pe oners used as
security for a loan a land property sold by deceased
to pe oner. With the loan, the pe oners built an
apartment on same land. Respondent filed an ac on
for the annulment of the Deed of Sale by deceased in
favor of pe oner bec of lack of considera on.
Pending also before CFI Ilocos Norte is an ac on for
par on wherein a compromise agreement was
reached excluding the lot in ques on from the list of
par onable proper es. Respondent filed an
inventory of the proper es comprising deceased’s
estate and included anyway the property in
controversy, which was approved. Respondent also
filed a mo on to collect rentals from the apartment,
which was approved.
Doctrine:
There are 2 civil cases: 1) ac on for Par on of
several proper es and 2) an ac on for Annulment of
contract of sale
https://docs.google.com/document/d/129DCkhwRl981Cx6jWKV_Zo2xJN22tVouphaXJNKzZjA/edit?fbclid=IwAR1nEWXYF03ohGxMY_7iD6fsfjCBEov1…
A probate court has no jurisdic on to determine
ques on of ownership included in the inventory of
an estate. This is a ma er that must be li gated in a
separate ac on.
Ownership of land with its improvements is an issue
not only in par on case but also in annulment sale
case. CFI asa probate court does not have the
jurisdic on to pass upon ownership because the
same might as well be determined in par on case
or annulment case or in both cases. Nor can CFI pass
upon mo on for exclusion provisionally even if it can
do so because it will only be an exercise in fu lity.
The presump ve conclusiveness of TCT should be
given due weight, and in the absence of strong
compelling evidence to the contrary, the holder is
considered owner un l his tle is nullified or
modified in an appropriate ordinary ac on.
The property should be excluded from the inventory.
Respondent court's order allowing administratrix to
collect rentals, has no more legal basis. The probate
court's authority extends only over proper es listed
in the inventory, without prejudice to any party
adversely affected asser ng his rights in a separate
appropriate remedy.
TOPIC: Ar cle 222 not applicable to specpro
(8) Vda. De Manalo v. Court of Appeals
Quick facts:
Troadio Manalo died intestate, survived by his wife,
Pilar S. Manalo, and his 11 children. Surviving heirs
(respondents) filed a pe on for se lement of
Estate.
Vda. De Manalo, et. al. filed an Opposi on for
dismissal of case on the ground that the pe on
failed to allege that the family membersmade
earnest efforts toward a compromise but that the
same have failed, in accordance with Art 222 NCC.
They claim that what the heirs filed is an ordinary
civil ac on, which contain averments indica ve of its
adversarial nature,
Doctrine:
Ar cle 222 of the Civil Code applies only to civil
ac ons which are essen ally adversarial and involve
members of the same family.
3/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_1-16_Arquillo - Google Docs
Pe oners are not being sued for any cause of ac on
as in fact no defendant was impleaded. The Pe on
for Issuance of Le ers of Administra on, Se lement
and Distribu on of Estate filed by respondents is
a special proceeding. Respondents merely seek to
establish the fact of death of their father and be
recognized as heirs so they can validly exercise their
right to
par cipate in the se lement of the estate.
TOPIC: Default; Rule 108 is adversarial
(9) Kilosbayan Foundation, et. al. v. Janolo, Jr., et. al
Quick facts:
Private respondent Ong filed
a pe on (Rule 108) for amendment/ correc on/
supplementa on or annota on of the entry on
ci zenship in his Birth Cer ficate w/RTC Pasig over
which public respondent Janolo, Jr. presided. As
Ong’s pe on was set for hearing by the RTC,
pe oners filed a mo on for voluntary inhibi on of
Janolo, which the RTC denied prior to the hearing on
the mo on. Despite the pendency of pe oners’
MR, RTC proceeded to hear Ong’s pe on.
Meanwhile, RTC declared pe oners in default.
Pe oners’ mo on to vacate the order of default
was denied. RTC granted Ong’s pe on and
recognized him as a natural-born ci zen of the Ph.
Pe oners assert public respondent commited grave
abuse (a) in not voluntarily inhibi ng himself; (b) in
declaring pe oners as having defaulted; and (c) in
gran ng Ong’s Pe on.
Doctrine:
Requisites for a mo on to li an order of default to
prosper:
1) it must be made by mo on under oath by
one who has knowledge of the facts;
2) it must be shown that the failure to file answer
was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence; and
3) there must be a proper showing of the existence
of meritorious defense.
The mo on to vacate order of default was not under
oath and it was not accompanied by an affidavit of
merit.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/129DCkhwRl981Cx6jWKV_Zo2xJN22tVouphaXJNKzZjA/edit?fbclid=IwAR1nEWXYF03ohGxMY_7iD6fsfjCBEov1…
Pe oners posit that the special proceedings under
Rule 108 is not an
adversarial proceeding in the absence of adversaries,
since the Office of the Civil Registrar is a formal party
while
the SolGen sided with Ong’s legal posi on.
Pe oners admit that they, while being par es in
interest in their capacity as judicial monitors and
observers, are not real adversarial li gants in the
juridical sense.
Substan al correc ons to the na onality/ ci zenship
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are adversarial.
Impleaded as defendants were CivRegistrar and any
other person claiming an interest under the entry to
be corrected. The interest of the State was
represented by SolGen, while pe oners’ was
waived when they failed to appear and file a
responsive pleading.
TOPIC: Ar cle 222 not applicable to specpro
(10) Vda. De Manalo, Id.
(repeated case)
TOPIC: Joinder of causes of ac on
(11) Garcia Vds. De Chua v. CA, et. al
Quick facts:
The deceased lived out of wedlock with priv. resp.
where they had 2 ill. children.
Resp filed a pe on w/ RTC Cotabato for
“Heirship/Guardianship” over the minors and
issuance of Le ers of Administra on.
Pe oner, alleged she was the surviving spouse and
filed MTD on ground of improper venue, which was
denied. RTC issued an order appoin ng decedent’s
first cousin, as administrator and an Order
appoin ng resp as guardian over the persons and
proper es of the children. Antonie a filed a Mo on
and prayed that the le ers of administra on be
recalled and
new le ers of administra on be issued to her. She,
likewise, filed a Mo on to declare the proceedings a
mistrial. Both were
denied.
Doctrine:
4/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_1-16_Arquillo - Google Docs
Pe oner argues that the CA ruling trea ng the
Special Proceeding as one for both guardianship and
se lement of estate is in contraven on of our ruling
in Gomez vs. Imperial: “The distribu on of the
residue of the estate of the deceased is a func on
pertaining not to the guardianship proceedings, but
to another proceeding which the heirs are at liberty
to ini ate.”
Pe oner is wrong. In the Gomez case, the ac on
before the lower court was merely one for
guardianship. Therefore said court did not have the
jurisdic on to distribute the estate of the deceased.
While in the case at bar, the pe on filed before the
court was both for guardianship and se lement of
estate.
Resp’s original pe on did not fail to allege facts
required by the Rules of Court in pe ons for
administra on
of a decedent’s estate: (1) death of testator; (2)
residence at death and (3) if the decedent was a
non-resident, the fact of being a resident of a foreign
country
and that he le an estate in the province where the
court is si ng.
TOPIC: Sec 6, Rule 39 only applies to civil ac ons.
(12) Spouses Topacio v. Banko Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank
Quick facts:
Sps Topacio failed to pay Bank promp ng the bank to
foreclose. Bank emerged as highest bidder in the
sheriff’s auc on. Bank filed a Pe on for Issuance of
a Writ of Possession, which RTC granted.
Writ of possession was not implemented because of
Sps Topacio’s Writ to set aside auc on sale and writ
of possession. RTC issued TRO and writ of
preliminary injunc on against sheriff from
implemen ng writ of possession.
More than 2 years a er, Judge dismissed bank’s
pe on for “failure to prosecute”.
No copy of this decision was served on bank, whose
opera ons were shut down by Monetary Bank.
Nearly 6 years later, bank filed a mo on to clarify the
order of dismissal and moved for issuance of an alias
https://docs.google.com/document/d/129DCkhwRl981Cx6jWKV_Zo2xJN22tVouphaXJNKzZjA/edit?fbclid=IwAR1nEWXYF03ohGxMY_7iD6fsfjCBEov1…
writ of possession, which was denied. Bank filed an
MR. New judge reconsidered and issued alias writ.
Doctrine:
The writ of possession may s ll be enforced by the
bank by mo on. Sec 6, Rule 39 only applies to civil
ac ons, not specpro.
Sec 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court: A final and
executory judgment or order may
be executed on mo on within five (5) years from the
date of its entry. A er the lapse of such me, and
before it is barred by the statute of limita ons, a
judgment may be enforced by ac on. The revived
judgment may also be enforced by mo on within
five (5) years from the date of its entry and
therea er by ac on before it is barred by the statute
of limita ons.
The Bank’s ex parte pe on for writ of possession as
it is not a civil ac on governed by Rules of Civil
Procedure but a judicial proceeding governed
separately by Sec 7 of Act No. 3135 which regulates
the methods of effec ng an extrajudicial foreclosure
of mortgage.
The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in
an extrajudicial foreclosure is summary and
ministerial in
nature as such proceeding is merely an incident in
the transfer of tle.
Thus, RTC commi ed no grave abuse in issuing an
alias writ of possession in favor of Respondent.
TOPIC: Jurisdic on v. venue
(13) Nocum, et. al. v. Tan
Quick facts:
Lucio Tan filed a complaint against reporter Nocum,
Capt. Umali, ALPAP and Inquirer w/ RTC Maka
seeking damages for malicious and defamatory
imputa ons in a news ar cle. Tan’s complaint failed
to state his residence and the place where the
libelous ar cle was printed and first published. RTC
dismissed Tan’s complaint without prejudice on the
ground of improper venue. Tan filed MR and
admission of amended
5/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_1-16_Arquillo - Google Docs
complaint. RTC admi ed the amended complaint
and deemed set aside RTC’s previous dismissal.
Doctrine:
Pe oners are confusing jurisdic on with venue.
Jurisdic on is the authority to hear and determine a
case; venue is the place
where the case is to be heard or tried
Jurisdic on is a ma er of substan ve law; venue, of
procedural law
Jurisdic on establishes a rela on between the court
and the subject ma er; venue, a rela on between
plain ff and defendant
Jurisdic on is fixed by law and cannot be conferred
by par es; venue may be conferred by act or
agreement of par es.
RTC acquired jurisdic on over Tan’s complaint. Tan’s
cause of ac on is for damages arising from libel, the
jurisdic on of which is vested with the RTC. Art 360
RPC provides that CFI is specifically designated to try
a libel case.
The addi onal allega ons in the Amended Complaint
that the ar cle and caricature were first published in
Maka referred only to venue and not jurisdic on.
These addi onal allega ons would neither confer
jurisdic on on RTC nor would respondent’s failure to
include the same in the original complaint divest RTC
of jurisdic on.
TOPIC: Jurisdic on v. venue
(14) Rudolf Lietz Holdings v. Registry of Deeds of
Parañaque City
Quick facts:
Pe oner corpora on changed its name from Rudolf
Lietz, Inc. to Rudolf Lietz Holdings. Rudlof filed for
amendment of tles w/ RTC Paranaque and
impleaded RD of Pasay since it was the one which
issued the TCTs and that the proper es were located
in Pasay. Rudolf learned that the tles are in custody
of RD of Paranaque.
Rudolf filed an Ex-Parte Mo on to Admit Amended
Pe on impleading RD of Paranaque and alleged
that the proper es are in Paranaque. RTC dismissed
https://docs.google.com/document/d/129DCkhwRl981Cx6jWKV_Zo2xJN22tVouphaXJNKzZjA/edit?fbclid=IwAR1nEWXYF03ohGxMY_7iD6fsfjCBEov1…
the pe on motu propio on the ground of improper
venue.
Doctrine:
SolGen confused venue with jurisdic on when it
argued that RTC did not acquire jurisdic on over the
res because it appeared from the pe on that
the lands are in Pasay, hence, outside jurisdic on of
Paranaque court. It was
wrong for the court to act upon the pe on.
The pe oner correctly invoked the jurisidic on of
the RTC in seeking amendment of its TCT – it
has the power to rule on ma ers involving the
registra on of land, amendment, and alterna on of
TCTs based on PD No 1529.
Trial court erred when it dismissed the pe on motu
propio. It should have waited for MTD or a
responsive pleading from respondent, raising
improper venue, before dismissing the pe on.
TOPIC: Jurisdic on v. venue
(15) Fule, et al v. C.A., et al
Quick facts:
Fule filed w/ CFI Calamba, Laguna a pe on for
le ers of administra on alleging that
died intestate and moved ex parte for her
appointment as special administratrix, which was
granted. MR filed by Garcia contending CFI Lguna
had no jurisdic on, since no no ce of the pe on for
le ers of administra on has been served upon all
persons interested in the estate. Fule filed a
“Supplemental Pe on” modifying her original
pe on alleging that Amado’s last residence was
Calamba. Supplemental Pe on Opposed by Garcia
bec it a empts to confer jurisdic on on the CFI
Laguna which did not possess the same at the
beginning because the original pe on was
deficient. Garcia filed MTD on the grounds that
jurisdic on over the pe on or over the par es in
interest has not been
acquired by the court and that venue was improperly
laid, which was denied.Garcia filed a pe on w/ CA
to annul proceedings in CFI Laguna, which CA
granted holding that CFI Laguna lacked jurisdic on.
Before CA decision was rendered, Garcia had already
6/7
3/3/2019 Specpro_1-16_Arquillo - Google Docs

filed a pe on for le ers of administra on w/ CFI of
Rizal, QC.
Doctrine:
CFI of Rizal, QC has jurisdic on. The Judiciary Act of
1948, as amended, confers upon CFI’s jurisdic on
over all probate cases independently of the place of
residence of the deceased. Because of the existence
of numerous CFI’s in the country, the Rules fixes the
venue or the place where each case shall be brought.
The place of residence of the deceased in se lement
of estates, probate of will, and issuance of le ers of
administra on
does not cons tute an element of jurisdic on over
the subject ma er. It is merely cons tu ve of venue.
The last place of residence of the deceased was at
Quezon City, and not at Calamba. Hence, the proper
venue is in Quezon City.
TOPIC: Specpro not men oned in Sec 1, Rule 72
(16) Pacific Banking Corporation Employees
Organization v. CA
Quick facts: (consolidated)
1sr case: PABC was placed under receivership and
liquida on. The Central Bank filed a pe on for
assistance in the liquida on of PABC, which was
approved. Pe oner union filed a complaint in
interven on seeking salary increase, payment of
which was ordered by the RTC. Respondent
liquidator filed MR which was denied. Liquidator
filed a No ce of Appeal (NOA) and a Mo on for
Addi onal me to submit Record on Appeal (MROA),
which was disallowed for being filed late. In
liquidator’s cer orari pe on, the union contends it
was filed out of me.
proceeding under Sec 1, Rule 72 ROC, nor among the
special proceedings that may be appealed under Sec
1, Rule 109 of the Rules.
Liquida on does not seek the enforcement or
protec on of a right (OCA). It merely seeks a
declara on of the corpora on’s insolvency so that
their creditors may file their claims.
Since liquida on is specpro, period of appeal is 30
days and in addi on to a no ce of appeal, a record
on appeal must be filed with the trial court to perfect
his appeal.
1st case: Liquidator filed NOA and MROA on Dec 10,
1991, i.e., within 30 days of his receipt of the order
gran ng the Union’s claim. Without wai ng for the
resolu on of MROA, he filed on Dec 20, 1991, within
the extension sought, a ROA. Judge erred in
disallowing NOA and denying MROA.
2nd case: Liquidator’s NOA was filed on me, having
been filed on the 23rd day of receipt of Order
gran ng claims of investors (ORDER). However,
liquidator did not file ROA and thus failed to perfect
his appeal. ORDER became final.

2nd case: Private respondents filed claims for shares

of stocks in PABC. Judge directed liquidator to pay
priv resps as preferred creditors. Liquidator filed MR,
which was denied. Liquidator filed a No ce of
Appeal. Judge ordered NOA stricken off the reord
bec filed beyond 15 days. Liquidator filed cer orari.
CA held that liquida on is an ordinary ac on.

Doctrine:
A pe on for liquida on is a special proceeding even
if it is not among the cases categorized as a special

https://docs.google.com/document/d/129DCkhwRl981Cx6jWKV_Zo2xJN22tVouphaXJNKzZjA/edit?fbclid=IwAR1nEWXYF03ohGxMY_7iD6fsfjCBEov1… 7/7