Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Republic vs.

CA and Solano  The SolGen, representing the RTC and RD, argues that
(1) the CA has no jurisdiction over the nature of the
Doctrine: A claimant to an escheated property must file his action; and (2) that the cause of action was barred by
claim "within five (5) years from the date of such judgment, the statute of limitations.
such person shall have possession of and title to the same, or  CA: in favor of Solano.
if sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him for
the proceeds, after deducting the estate; but a claim not made Issue:
shall be barred forever." (1) WON Solano, not being an heir but a done, has the
personality to be a claimant in escheat proceedings -
Facts: Yes
 The late Elizabeth Hankins donated 2 parcels of land (2) WON the 5 year prescriptive period under Rule 91 has
located in Pasay City in favor of Amada Solano for her already prescribed – Yes
dedicated service as her personal domestic helper. (3) WON the subject properties formed part of Hankin’s
 Solano alleged that she misplaced the deeds of estate - Yes
donation Ruling:
 The Republic filed a petition for the escheat of the (1) Yes
estate of Hankins in 1987. In an escheat proceeding, any person alleging to have a direct
 The spouse of Solano filed a motion for intervention right or interest in the property sought to be escheated is
but was denied by the RTC. likewise an interested party and may appear and oppose the
 On 1989, The RTC decided in favor of the Republic and petition for escheat.
ordered that the TCTs of the subject lands be cancelled
and a new one be issued in the name of Pasay City. (2)
 On Jan. 28, 1997, Solano claims that she found the A claimant to an escheated property must file his claim
deeds of donation. She then filed a petition to annul "within five (5) years from the date of such judgment, such
the lower court’s judgment alleging that: (1) the person shall have possession of and title to the same, or if
properties were not part of Hawkins estate when she sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him for
died as they were validly donated to her; and (2) the the proceeds, after deducting the estate; but a claim not made
decision is legally infirm as the properties should be shall be barred forever."
escheated in favor of the Republic of the Philippines,
not the Pasay City Government. In the case at bar, the escheat judgment was handed down by
as early as 1989 but it was only on 1997, more or less seven
(7) years after, when private respondent decided to contest
the escheat judgment in the guise of a petition for annulment
of judgment before the Court of Appeals. Obviously, private
respondent's belated assertion of her right over the escheated
properties militates against recovery.

(3) Yes
Where a person comes into an escheat proceeding as a
claimant, the burden is on such intervenor to establish his title
to the property and his right to intervene. In the absence of of
any clear and convincing proof showing that the subject lands
had been conveyed by Hankins to private respondent Solano,
the same still remained, at least before the escheat, part of
the estate of the decedent and the lower court was right not
to assume otherwise.