NATCHER V.
COURT OF Gracianos death, Natcher, through
APPEALS & THE HEIRS OF
GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO
FACTS:
Spouses Graciano del Rosario and
Graciana Esguerra were the
registered owners of a 9,322 sqm
parcel of land located in Manila.
Upon the death of Graciana,
Graciano and his 6 children entered
into an extrajudicial settlement of
Gracianas estate adjudicating and
dividing among themselves the
Manila property. Graciano received
8/14 share while each child received
1/14 share. Accordingly, the old TCT
was cancelled, and a new TCT
issued in the name of Graciano and
the 6 children.
Then, the heirs executed and
forged an Agreement of
Consolidation- Subdivision of Real
Property with Waiver of Rights
where they subdivided among
themselves the parcel of land
covered by the new TCT. Graciano
donated to his children, share and
share alike, a portion of his interest in
the land amounting to 4,849.38 sqm
leaving only 447.60 sqm under his
name. Subsequently, Gracianos
portion was further subdivided into 2
separate lots (first lot and second lot).
Eventually, Graciano sold the first lot
to a third person but retained
ownership over the second lot.
26 years later, Graciano married
Patricia Natcher. During their
marriage, Graciano sold the second
lot to Patricia and a TCT was issued
in her name. 5 years later, Graciano
died leaving Patricia and his 6
children by his first marriage, as
heirs.
In an action for reconveyance and
annulment of title with damages filed
before the RTC of Manila, the heirs
of Graciano alleged that upon
fraud, misrepresentation and forgery,
acquired the TCT for the second lot,
by making it appear that their faither
executed a Deed of Sale in her favor.
As a consequence of such fraudulent
sale, their legitimes have been
impaired.
In her answer, Natcher contended
that she was legally married to
Graciano and thus, she was likewise
his compulsory heir. During his
lifetime, Graciano already distributed
in advance properties to his children,
hence, they may no longer claim
against his estate or against
Natchers property.
RTC Ruling: The sale between
Graciano Del Rosario and Patricia
Natcher is prohibited by law. The
sale cannot also be considered as a
valid donation.
But, it may be considered as an
extension of advance inheritance of
Natcher being a compulsory heir.
CA Ruling: Reversed the RTC. The
RTC should have merely ruled on the
validity of the sale and left the issue
on advancement to be resolved in a
separate proceeding instituted for
that purpose since it is the probate
court that has exclusive jurisdiction
to make a just and legal distribution
of the estate. The RTC 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 estate of a deceased person.
ISSUE/ HELD: May the RTC, acting
as a court of general jurisdiction,
adjudicate matters relating to the
settlement of the estate of a
deceased person particularly in
questions as to advancement of
property made by the decedent to
any of the heirs? NO.
RATIO:
A civil action is one by which a party
sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong. 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.
A special proceeding is a remedy
by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right or a particular fact. A
special proceeding may be defined
as an application or proceeding to
establish the status or right of a party,
or a particular fact. Usuall, no formal
pleadings are required unless the
statute expressly so provides. And,
the remedy is granted generally upon
an application or motion.
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.
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.
Thus, under Section 2, Rule 90 of the
Rules of Court, 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
jurisdiction of the estate proceedings
- meaning a probate court. The RTC
in this case, acting in its general
jurisdiction, has no authority to
resolve the issue of advancement of
the real property in favor of Natcher.
Whether a particular matter should
be resolved by the RTC in the
exercise of its general jurisdiction or
its limited probate jurisdiction is not a
jurisdictional issue but a mere
question of procedure. Thus, it is a
procedural question involving a
mode of practice which may be
waived. But in this case, no waiver
was made.
PACIFIC BANKING CORP. vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (1995)
Difference between Civil Action
and Special Proceedings
FACTS
These are two consolidated cases
involving the question of whether a
petition for liquidation is a special
proceeding or an ordinary civil
action.
CASE 1. The Pacific Banking
Corporation (PaBC) was placed
under receivership by the Central
Bank, and subsequently placed
under liquidation.
The Pacific Banking Corporation
Employees Organization (Union)
filed a Complaint-in-intervention
seeking payment of benefits due its
members as employees of PaBC.
The Trial Court ordered payment of
the principal claims of the Union.
The Liquidator filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, but which was
subsequently denied. The Liquidator
then filed a notice of Appeal and a
Motion for Addiditional Time to
Submit Record on Appeal. The Trial
Court disallowed the Notice of
Appeal on the ground that it was filed
more than 15 days after receipt of
the decision.
CASE 2. Ang Keong Lan and EJ Ang
Intl filed claims for the payment of
investment in the PaBC allegedly in
the form of shares of stocks
amounting to US$2,531,632.18. The
Trial Court directed the Liquidator to
pay private respondents the total
amount of their claim as preferred
creditors. After his Motion for
Reconsideration was denied, the
Liquidator filed a notice of Appeal.
The Trial Court ordered the Notice of
Appeal stricken off the record on the
ground that it had been filed beyond
the 15 day period from receipt of the
decision.
ISSUES/HELD
W/N a petition for liquidation is a
special proceeding or an ordinary
civil action. A petition for liquidation is
a special proceeding
W/N the appeals of the Liquidator
should have been upheld. CASE 1 -
YES CASE 2 - NO
RATIO
Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provide:
1. Action defined - Action means an
ordinary suit in a court of justice, by
which one party prosecutes another
for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of
a wrong 2. Special proceeding
distinguished Every other remedy,
including one to establish the status
or right of a party or a particular fact,
shall be by special proceeding.
Civil Action:
1. The act by which one sues
another in a court of justice for the
enforcement or protection of a right,
or the prevention or redress of a
wrong. 2. A formal demand of a right
by one against another 3. Ex. Where
a party litigant seeks to recover
property from another
Special Proceeding:
1. The act by which one seeks to
establish the status or right of a
party, or a particular fact 2. A
petition for a declaration of a status,
right or fact. 3. Ex. Where a party
litigant seeks the appointment of a
guardian for an insane, the remedy is
a special proceeding to establish the
fact or status of insanity calling for an
appointment of guardianship.
A petition for liquidation of an
insolvent corporation should be
classified as a special proceeding
and not an ordinary action. Such a
petition does not seek the
enforcement or protection of a right
nor the prevention or redress of a
wrong against a party.
A petition for liquidation merely
seeks a declaration of the
corporations state of insolvency and
the concomitant right of creditors and
the order of payment of their claims
in the disposition of the corporations
assets.
In a petition for liquidation, the period
of appeal is 30 days (Not 15) and the
party appealing must, in addition to a
notice of appeal, file with the trial
court a record on appeal.
In Case 1, the Liquidator filed a
notice of appeal and a motion for
extension to file a record of appeal
on within 30 days from receipt of the
order granting the Unions claim, and
filed a record on appeal within the
extension sought.
3A Digestgroup*SpecPro*
2008-2009
In Case 2, the Liquidators notice of
appeal was filed on time, having
been filed on the 23rd day of receipt
of the order granting the claim of the
Stockholders. However, the
Liquidator did not file a record on
appeal, with the result that he failed
to perfect his appeal.