Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Palma Gil Streets Davao City to settle the debts of the estate. The heirs opposed the
motion stating the claims against the estate had not yet been properly determined and
that the sale of the Agdao would be more sufficient to cover the obligations of the estate
which they claimed were exaggerated. The Court authorized the sale since the majority
of the heirs were in favor of the sale.
The administrator moved for the approval of the conditional sale to the Agdao property
to Angliongto for a total consideration of P146 820 payable in 6 installments. It was
stipulated that the vendor was to cause ejectment of all occupants in the property. The
heirs filed a motion to set aside the order authorizing the sale on the ground that they
were negotiating for the sale of the said lot to Mr. Gonzales. The court denied the
motion to set aside.
The administrator presented another Motion for Authority to sell the Claro M. recto lot
because the proceed of the sale of agdao lot was not sufficient to cover the obligations
of the estate.
A motion was filed praying that the administrator be asked to resign or be removed for
having abused his powers and duties and that letters of administration be granted
instead to Filomena Pizarro.
Motion for cancellation or rescission of conditional contract of sale of the Agdao lot
unnecessary because the sale of the lot in Claro M. Recto is more than sufficient to
settle his obligation of the estate
Administrator presented a motion to approve final sale of the Agdao lot to spouses
Angliongtos because tha latter had paid the full balance. The court approved the same.
TCT was issued in favor of Angliongtos
The heirs then filed a complaint for cancellation of authority to sell and rescission and
annulment of deed of sale and damages with preliminary injunction against Angliongtos
spouses, administrator.
CA; dismissed the petition opining that the CFI of Davao did not abuse its discretion in
approving the intestate case and even granting it the proper remedy was appeal and not
certiorari. Said dismissal was final thus the remedy is appeal.
Issue: whether or not the court of appeals correct in upholding the decision of the RTC?
Ruling: Appeal not being speedy enough to bring about the desired objective and to be
of any utility to the heirs their avilment of certiorari must be held to have been proper.
Petitioners sought to achieve in filing the rescission case was to rescind the sale mainly
for failure of the vendees to pay the full consideration thereof which is a valid ground for
rescission. That cause of action was within the judicial competence and authority over
civil cases the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation. It was
beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court whose main province was the settlement of
the estate. As a matter of fact, the rescission case was instituted after the probate court
itself had stated that petitioners cause of action was not within its authority to resolve
but should be filed with the competent court.
Gabatan vs. CA
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 ordinary suit for
recovery of ownership and possession of property. 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 declaration can only be made in special proceeding.
Facts: the subject of the controversy is the land located at Cagayan De oro which was
owned by Juan Gabatan. The respondent alleged that she is the sole owner of the
property having inherited the same from her deceased mother, Hermogena Gabatan.
Respondent stated that her mother is the only child of Juan Gabatan and his wife
Laurena gabatan. Respondent alleged that upon death of Juan Gabatan, , the lot was
entrusted to his brother Teofilo for administration. They demanded the return of the land
but to no avail.
Petitioners denied that the respondents mother is not the daughter of Juan gabatan
because the latter died single and he was survived by his brother and 2 sisters. That
they have been in actual, physical, open, public, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted
possession for more than 50 years.
RTC/CA: in favor of respondent. Reconvey the lot to the respondent
Ruling: Grant the petition.
There appears to be only one parcel of land being claimed by the contending parties as
their inheritance from Juan Gabatan. It would be more practical to dispense with the a
separate proceeding for the termination of the status of the respondent as the sole heir
of Juan Gabatan specially when the parties had voluntarily submitted the issue to the
RTC and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship.
Respondents mother birth certificate which would have been the best evidence of
Hermogenas relationship to Juan Gabatan was never offered as evidence at the RTC.
Neither did respondent present any authentic document or final judgment categorically
determine heirship of the partied involved ultimately resulting to the dismissal of the civil
case.
LIMOS VS ODONES
Facts: respondents filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed, Title and Damages against
petitioners before the RTC. The complaint alleged that respondent are the owners of
land located at Tarlac by virtue of an Extra judicial Succession of Estate and Sale
executed by the surviving grandchildren and heirs of Donita Lardizabal in whom the
original titles was registered. It took a while before respondents decided to register the
document of conveyance and when they did they found out that the OCT was cancelled
and transferred to the name of the petitioners. Petitioners were able to secure the TCT
by virtue of a deed of absolute sale allegedly executed by Donata Lardizabal and her
husband. Respondent sought cancellation of the TCT on the ground that the signatures
of Donita Lardizabal were forgeries. They also claim that their vendors are the only heirs
of lardizabal. RTC denied the complaint.
CA: petitioner filed special civil action. CA denied. It can be be proven in a full blown
hearing.
Issue: whether or not the the status of the heirs of Donita Lardizabal who sold the
property to the respondent must first be established in a special proceeding?
Ruling: Denied petition.
In both case, this court held that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a
special proceeding and not in a civil cation. It must be noted that in Yaptinchay and
Enriquez, plaintiffs action for annulment of title was anchored on their alleged status as
heirs of the original owner whereas in this case, the respondent claim is rooted on the
sale transaction. Respondent are enforcing their right as buyers on good faith and for
value and not as heirs of the original owner.
UY KIAO ENG VS NIXON LEE
Facts: Respondent (LEE) alleging that his father passed away on June 22, 1992 and
left a holographic will which is now in the custody of the petitioner (mother) filed a
petition for mandamus with damages before the RTC to compel the petitioner to
produce the will so that the probate proceeding for the allowance could be instituted.
According to the respondent he already requested her mother to settle and liquidate the
estate of her father but the petitioner refuse.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, lack of cause of
action and for non compliance with a condition precedent for the filing thereof.