CHING vs.

RODRIGUEZ
G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011
FACTS:
Respondents are allegedly the children and common-law-wives of late Antonio Ching. They
averred that petitioner Ramon misrepresented himself as Antonio's son to receive shares from
the estate of Antonio. The Respondents alleged that petitioner Ramon had illegally transferred
to his name the titles of the properties left by Antonio, by executing malicious instruments such
as Agreement, Waiver, Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale, and
Transfer Certificates of Title. Respondents filed a Complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
praying for declaration of nullity of those instruments and Ramons disinheritance. In the
Amended Complaint, the Respondents prayed that they be declared as the rightful owners of
the Certificate of Premium Plus Acquisition (CPPA) originally issued to Antonio . Petitioners
questioned the Amended Complaint on the alleged ground of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the Complaint. The petitioners argued that since the Amended Complaint
sought the release of the CPPA to the respondents, the latter's declaration as heirs of Antonio,
and the propriety of Ramon's disinheritance, the suit partakes of the nature of a special
proceeding and not an ordinary action for declaration of nullity. Hence, jurisdiction pertains to a
probate or intestate court and not to the RTC acting as an ordinary court.
The RTC denied the Petitioners claim. RTC stated that the action delves mainly on the question
of ownership of the properties described in the Complaint which can be properly settled in an
ordinary civil action. Court of Appeals affirmed the RTCs contention.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a particular matter should be resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction.
HELD:
The RTC should resolve the issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction. An action for
reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil action, whereas 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, which concomitantly requires the
application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action where a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. To initiate a
special proceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be filed.
RULING:
The petition was dismissed

SHEKER vs. ESTATE OF ALICE O. SHEKER

G.R. No. 157912. December 13, 2007
FACTS
The RTC admitted to probate the holographic will of Alice O. Sheker and thereafter issued an
order for all the creditors to file their respective claims against the estate. In compliance
therewith, petitioner a contingent claim for agent's commission due him in the event of the sale
of certain parcels of land belonging to the estate, and the reimbursement for expenses incurred
and/or to be incurred by petitioner in the course of negotiating the sale of said realties.
The executrix moved for the dismissal of said money claim against the estate on the grounds
that (1) the requisite docket fee, as prescribed in Section 7 (a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court,
had not been paid; (2) petitioner failed to attach a certification against non-forum shopping; and
(3) petitioner failed to attach a written explanation why the money claim was not filed and served
personally.
The RTC issued the assailed Order dismissing without prejudice the money claim based on the
grounds advanced by respondent.
Petitioner maintains that the RTC erred in strictly applying to a probate proceeding the rules
requiring a certification of non-forum shopping, a written explanation for non-personal filing, and
the payment of docket fees upon filing of the claim. He insists that Section 2, Rule 72 of the
Rules of Court provides that rules in ordinary actions are applicable to special proceedings only
in a suppletory manner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a certification of non-forum shopping, a written explanation for non-personal
filing, and the payment of docket fees upon filing of the claim are only supplementary to rules in
special proceedings.
RULING:
No. It must be emphasized that petitioner's contention that rules in ordinary actions are only
supplementary to rules in special proceedings is not entirely correct.
Section 2, Rule 72, Part II of the same Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of Civil Actions. In the absence of special provisions, the rules
provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings.
Stated differently, special provisions under Part II of the Rules of Court govern special
proceedings; but in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in Part I of the
Rules governing ordinary civil actions shall be applicable to special proceedings, as far as
practicable.

The word "practicable" is defined as: possible to practice or perform; capable of being put into
practice, done or accomplished. This means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in
ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible and where doing
so would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings. Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it
categorically say that rules in ordinary actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to special
proceedings.
FERNANDEZ vs. MARAVILLA
G.R. No. L-18799. March 31, 1964
FACTS:
Respondent Herminio filed with the Court of First Instance a petition for probate of the will of his
deceased wife. In the will the surviving spouse was named as the universal heir and executor.
Petitioners Pedro, Asuncion, and Regina (brother and sisters of the deceased Digna) filed an
opposition to the probate of the will, on the ground that the will was not signed on each page by
the testatrix in the presence of the attesting witnesses and of one another.
The court rendered a decision denying probate of the will, as it was not duly signed on each
page by the testatrix in the presence of the attesting witnesses and of one another.
Petitioners Pedro, Asuncion, and Regina filed with the court a petition for appointment of Eliezar
Lopez (son of Asuncion) as special co-administrator to protect their interests, on the ground that
the will, having been denied probate, they are the legal heirs of the decedent.
After joint hearings, the court appointed Eliezar Lopez as special co-administrator.
From this order, respondent, with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and to annul the
order appointing Eliezar Lopez as special co-administrator.
Petitioners Regina et al. filed with the Court of Appeals a petition to certify the case to the
Supreme Court, on the grounds that the principal amount in controversy in this case exceeds
P200,000.00, (as per inventoried submitted, the properties valued at P362,424.90) and the
writs (of certiorari and prohibition) prayed for are not in aid of appellate jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeals, since the probate case is not on appeal before it. Respondent filed an opposition, on
the grounds that the amount in controversy is less than P200,000.00 ( which is only P90,000.00
more or less, one-fourth of the conjugal property) and the action is in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction, and the present case does not involve title to or possession of real estate exceeding
in value P200.000.00.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision granting the writs prayed for by Respondent, and
declaring null and void the appointment of Eliezar Lopez as special co-administrator.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals has an appellate jurisdiction over testate proceedings
wherein the properties involved are valued more than P200,000.00.

HELD:
The Court of Appeals has no appellate jurisdiction over said testate proceedings, considering
that the properties therein involved are valued at P362,424.90.
In an appeal from an order of a probate court appointing a special co-administrator, such issue
being merely incidental to the probate or testate proceedings of the deceased spouse, the
amount in controversy is not merely the value of the portion of the conjugal estate pertaining to
the deceased spouse but of the entire conjugal estate, and it is this latter amount that
determines what court will have jurisdiction over said appeal.