Professional Documents
Culture Documents
189538
SO ORDERED.9
Finding that the signature appearing in the subject
marriage contract was not that of respondent, the court
found basis in granting the latters prayer to straighten her
record and rectify the terrible mistake.10
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Regional Trial
Court1(RTC) Decision2 dated May 5, 2009 and Order3 dated
August 25, 2009 in SP. Proc. No. 16519-CEB. The assailed
decision granted respondent Merlinda L. Olaybar's petition
for cancellation of entries in the latter's marriage contract;
while the assailed order denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner Republic of the
Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG).
The facts of the case are as follows:
Respondent requested from the National Statistics Office
(NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage (CENOMAR) as one of
the requirements for her marriage with her boyfriend of
five years. Upon receipt thereof, she discovered that she
was already married to a certain Ye Son Sune, a Korean
National, on June 24, 2002, at the Office of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Palace of Justice. She denied
having contracted said marriage and claimed that she did
not know the alleged husband; she did not appear before
the solemnizing officer; and, that the signature appearing
in the marriage certificate is not hers.4 She, thus, filed a
Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage
Contract, especially the entries in the wife portion
thereof.5 Respondent impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of
Cebu City, as well as her alleged husband, as parties to the
case.
During trial, respondent testified on her behalf and
explained that she could not have appeared before Judge
Mamerto Califlores, the supposed solemnizing officer, at
the time the marriage was allegedly celebrated, because
she was then in Makati working as a medical distributor in
Hansao Pharma. She completely denied having known the
supposed husband, but she revealed that she recognized
the named witnesses to the marriage as she had met them
while she was working as a receptionist in Tadels Pension
House. She believed that her name was used by a certain
Johnny Singh, who owned a travel agency, whom she gave
her personal circumstances in order for her to obtain a
passport.6 Respondent also presented as witness a certain
Eufrocina Natinga, an employee of MTCC, Branch 1, who
confirmed that the marriage of Ye Son Sune was indeed
celebrated in their office, but claimed that the alleged wife
who appeared was definitely not respondent.7 Lastly, a
document examiner testified that the signature appearing
in the marriage contract was forged.8
On May 5, 2009, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, the petition is
granted in favor of the petitioner, Merlinda L. Olaybar. The
Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City is directed to cancel all
the entries in the WIFE portion of the alleged marriage
contract of the petitioner and respondent Ye Son Sune.
Page 1
Page 2
January 9, 2013
Page 3
0023 before the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 112. The RTC
subsequently denied this motion.15
The RTC of Quezon City opted to defer consideration16 of
Metrobanks motion to strike out third-party
complaint17 and it instead granted AMCs motion for leave
to serve written interrogatories on the third-party
defendant.18 While Metrobank filed its answer to the
written interrogatories, AMC was again directed by the
RTC, in an order19 dated August 13, 2003, to submit its bill
of particulars. Instead, AMC filed a motion for
reconsideration20 which was denied in an order21 dated
October 28, 2003. AMC still did not file its bill of
particulars. The RTC, on the other hand, did not act on
Metrobanks motion to strike out AMCs third-party
complaint.22
In its answer23 dated December 1, 2003, Metrobank
admitted that it deposited the checks in question to the
account of Ayala Lumber and Hardware, a sole
proprietorship Chua owned and managed. The deposit was
allegedly done with the knowledge and consent of AMC.
According to
Metrobank, Chua then gave the assurance that the
arrangement for the handling of the checks carried AMCs
consent. Chua also submitted documents showing his
position and interest in AMC. These documents, as well as
AMCs admission in its answer that it allowed Chua to
manage AMC with a relative free hand, show that it knew
of Chuas arrangement with Metrobank. Further, Chuas
records show that the proceeds of the checks were
remitted to AMC which cannot therefore now claim that it
did not receive these proceeds.
Metrobank also raised the defense of estoppel. According
to Metrobank, AMC had knowledge of its arrangements
with Chua for several years. Despite this arrangement,
AMC did not object to nor did it call the attention of
Metrobank about Chuas alleged lack of authority to
deposit the checks in Ayala Lumber and Hardwares
account. At this point, AMC is already estopped from
questioning Chuas authority to deposit these checks in
Ayala Lumber and Hardwares account.
Lastly, Metrobank asserted that AMC gave Chua unbridled
control in managing AMCs affairs. This measure of control
amounted to gross negligence that was the proximate
cause of the loss that AMC must now bear.
Subsequently, Metrobank filed a motion for leave to admit
fourth-party complaint24 against Chuas estate. It alleged
that Chuas estate should reimburse Metrobank in case it
would be held liable in the third-party complaint filed
against it by AMC.
The RTCs Ruling
In an order25 dated May 7, 2004, the RTC denied
Metrobanks motion. It likewise denied Metrobanks
motion for reconsideration in an order26 dated July 7,
2004.
The RTC categorized Metrobanks allegation in the fourthparty complaint as a "cobro de lo indebido" 27 a kind of
quasi-contract that mandates recovery of what has been
improperly paid. Quasi-contracts fall within the concept of
implied contracts that must be included in the claims
required to be filed with the judicial settlement of the
deceaseds estate under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of
Court. As such claim, it should have been filed in Special
Proceedings No. 99-0023, not before the RTC as a fourth-
Page 4
in
Rule
complaint
is
Page 5
Metrobanks
fourth-party
complaint,
as
a
contingent
claim,
falls
within
the
claims
that
should
be
filed
under
Section
5,
Rule
86
of
the
Rules
of
Court
DECISION
Specific
provisions
86
of
the
Rules
general
provisions
6 of the Rules of Court
of
of
of
Section
5,
Court
prevail
Section
11,
Rule
over
Rule
PUNO, C.J.:
This Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition seeks to set
aside the Orders of the Sharia District Court, Fourth
Sharia Judicial District, Marawi City, dated August 22,
20061 and September 21, 2006.2
On August 17, 1956, petitioner Luisa Kho Montaer, a
Roman Catholic, married Alejandro Montaer, Sr. at the
Immaculate Conception Parish in Cubao, Quezon
City.3 Petitioners Alejandro Montaer, Jr., Lillibeth
Montaer-Barrios, and Rhodora Eleanor MontaerDalupan are their children.4 On May 26, 1995, Alejandro
Montaer, Sr. died.5
On August 19, 2005, private respondents Liling
Disangcopan and her daughter, Almahleen Liling S.
Montaer, both Muslims, filed a "Complaint" for the
judicial partition of properties before the Sharia District
Court.6 The said complaint was entitled "Almahleen Liling
S. Montaer and Liling M. Disangcopan v. the Estates and
Properties of Late Alejandro Montaer, Sr., Luisa Kho
Montaer, Lillibeth K. Montaer, Alejandro Kho Montaer,
Jr., and Rhodora Eleanor K. Montaer," and docketed as
"Special Civil Action No. 7-05."7 In the said complaint,
private respondents made the following allegations: (1) in
May 1995, Alejandro Montaer, Sr. died; (2) the late
Alejandro Montaer, Sr. is a Muslim; (3) petitioners are the
first family of the decedent; (4) Liling Disangcopan is the
widow of the decedent; (5) Almahleen Liling S. Montaer is
the daughter of the decedent; and (6) the estimated value
of and a list of the properties comprising the estate of the
decedent.8 Private respondents prayed for the Sharia
District Court to order, among others, the following: (1)
the partition of the estate of the decedent; and (2) the
appointment of an administrator for the estate of the
decedent.9
Page 6
V.
RESPONDENT SHARIA DISTRICT COURTMARAWI CITY
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT SET SPL. CIVIL
ACTION 7-05 FOR TRIAL EVEN IF THE COMPLAINT
PLAINLY REVEALS THAT RESPONDENT ALMAHLEEN
LILING S. MONTAER SEEKS RECOGNITION FROM
ALEJANDRO MONTAER, SR. WHICH CAUSE OF ACTION
PRESCRIBED UPON THE DEATH OF ALEJANDRO
MONTAER, SR. ON MAY 26, 1995.
In their Comment to the Petition for Certiorari, private
respondents stress that the Sharia District Court must be
given the opportunity to hear and decide the question of
whether the decedent is a Muslim in order to determine
whether it has jurisdiction.20
Jurisdiction: Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Muslims
Petitioners first argument, regarding the Sharia District
Courts jurisdiction, is dependent on a question of fact,
whether the late Alejandro Montaer, Sr. is a Muslim.
Inherent in this argument is the premise that there has
already been a determination resolving such a question of
fact. It bears emphasis, however, that the assailed orders
did not determine whether the decedent is a Muslim. The
assailed orders did, however, set a hearing for the purpose
of resolving this issue.
Article 143(b) of Presidential Decree No. 1083, otherwise
known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines, provides that the Sharia District Courts have
exclusive original jurisdiction over the settlement of the
estate of deceased Muslims:
ARTICLE 143. Original jurisdiction. (1) The Shari'a
District Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
over:
xxxx
(b) All cases involving disposition, distribution and
settlement of the estate of deceased Muslims, probate of
wills, issuance of letters of administration or appointment
of administrators or executors regardless of the nature or
the aggregate value of the property.
The determination of the nature of an action or proceeding
is controlled by the averments and character of the relief
sought in the complaint or petition.21 The designation
given by parties to their own pleadings does not
necessarily bind the courts to treat it according to the said
designation. Rather than rely on "a falsa descriptio or
defective caption," courts are "guided by the substantive
averments of the pleadings."22
Although private respondents designated the pleading
filed before the Sharia District Court as a "Complaint" for
judicial partition of properties, it is a petition for the
issuance of letters of administration, settlement, and
distribution of the estate of the decedent. It contains
sufficient jurisdictional facts required for the settlement of
the estate of a deceased Muslim,23 such as the fact of
Alejandro Montaer, Sr.s death as well as the allegation
that he is a Muslim. The said petition also contains an
enumeration of the names of his legal heirs, so far as
known to the private respondents, and a probable list of
the properties left by the decedent, which are the very
properties sought to be settled before a probate court.
Furthermore, the reliefs prayed for reveal that it is the
intention of the private respondents to seek judicial
Page 7
Page 8
October 2, 2001
PATRICIA
NATCHER,
petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OFAPPEALS AND THE HEIR OF GRACIANO
DEL ROSARIO LETICIA DEL ROSARIO, EMILIA DEL
RESORIO MANANGAN, ROSALINDA FUENTES LLANA,
Page 9
Natcher,
through
the
employment
of
fraud,
misrepresentation and forgery, acquired TCT No. 107443,
by making it appear that Graciano executed a Deed of Sale
dated 25 June 19876 in favor herein petitioner resulting in
the cancellation of TCT No. 107443 and the issuance of
TCT no. 186059 in the name of Patricia Natcher. Similarly,
herein private respondents alleged in said complaint that
as a consequence of such fraudulent sale, their legitimes
have been impaired.
answer7 dated
In her
19 August 1994, herein petitioner
Natcher averred that she was legally married to Graciano
in 20 March 1980 and thus, under the law, she was
likewise considered a compulsory heir of the latter.
Petitioner further alleged that during Graciano's lifetime,
Graciano already distributed, in advance, properties to his
children, hence, herein private respondents may not
anymore claim against Graciano's estate or against herein
petitioner's property.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 55,
rendered a decision dated 26 January 1996 holding:8
"1) The deed of sale executed by the late Graciano del
Rosario in favor of Patricia Natcher is prohibited by law
and thus a complete nullity. There being no evidence that a
separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage
settlements or that there has been decreed a judicial
separation of property between them, the spouses are
prohibited from entering (into) a contract of sale;
"2) The deed as sale cannot be likewise regarded as a valid
donation as it was equally prohibited by law under Article
133 of the New Civil Code;
"3) Although the deed of sale cannot be regarded as such
or as a donation, it may however be regarded as an
extension of advance inheritance of Patricia Natcher being
a compulsory heir of the deceased."
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the
lower court's decision ratiocinating, inter alia:
"It is the probate court that has exclusive jurisdiction to
make a just and legal distribution of the estate. The court a
quo, 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. XXX
"X X X Thus the court a quo erred in regarding the subject
property as advance inheritance. What the court should
have done was merely to rule on the validity of (the) sale
and leave the issue on advancement to be resolved in a
separate proceeding instituted for that purpose. XXX"
Aggrieved, herein petitioner seeks refuge under our
protective mantle through the expediency of Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court and assails the appellate court's decision
"for being contrary to law and the facts of the case."
We concur with the Court of Appeals and find no merit in
the instant petition.
Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
defines civil action and special proceedings, in this wise:
"XXX a) 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.
Page 10
MENDOZA, J.:
These cases have been consolidated because the principal
question involved is the same: whether a petition for
liquidation under 29 of Rep. Act No. 265, otherwise
known as the Central Bank Act, is a special proceeding or
an ordinary civil action. The Fifth and the Fourteenth
Divisions of the Court of Appeals reached opposite results
on this question and consequently applied different
periods for appealing.
The facts are as follows:
I.
Proceedings in the CB and the RTC
On July 5, 1985, the Pacific Banking Corporation (PaBC)
was placed under receivership by the Central Bank of the
Philippines pursuant to Resolution No. 699 of its Monetary
Board. A few months later, it was placed under
liquidation 1 and a Liquidator was appointed. 2
On April 7, 1986, the Central Bank filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila Branch 31, a petition entitled
"Petition for Assistance in the Liquidation of Pacific
Banking Corporation." 3 The petition was approved, after
which creditors filed their claims with the court.
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
RTC-BR.
35
and
JOMOC, respondents.
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
May 6, 2005
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Twentieth Division),
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE FORTUNITO L. MADRONA,
APOLINARIA
MALINAO
DECISION
Page 15
AND
72
APPLICABILITY
(d) Trustees;
(e) Adoption;
Page 16
April 9, 2002
Page 17
was illegal and void since the land was subject to the
Voluntary Offer To Sell scheme of the DAR as evidenced by
the CARP VOS Form No. 1 signed by Antonio Dasig.
Rosario Dasig, though impleaded as a party, did not
participate in the proceedings before the Regional
Adjudicator. Only respondent Amor filed an answer.
Respondent maintained that the sale of the subject
landholding was valid because petitioners were
not bonafide tenants of the same but merely worked
thereon as hired workers on a "pakyaw" basis; that
Deogracias Musa admitted in an affidavit executed on July
4, 1982 that he was a hired worker; that the CARP
Voluntary Offer To Sell allegedly executed by Antonio
Dasig was forged as attested to by the latter in his affidavit
dated November 23, 1993; and that petitioners are not
qualified beneficiaries under P.D. 27 and R.A. 6637
because they are landowners themselves.
On June 30, 1994, the Regional Adjudicator of DAR ruled in
favor of petitioners declaring them as tenants of the
subject landholding and nullifying the deed of absolute
sale between Rosario Dasig and respondent. The
dispositive portion of the said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1) Declaring complainant as tenants in the subject
landholding;
2) Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale Null and Void
without prejudice to the filing with another forum of
appropriate jurisdiction for the parties thereto to recover
whatever rights that may pertain to them;
3) Ordering respondent and all persons acting in their
behalf to reinstate complainants in the subject landholding
and to maintain the latter in peaceful possession therein;
4) Directing the PARO of Sorsogon, the Regional Director
DAR Region V to generate transfer action on the portion of
land in question covered by Operation Land Transfer
subject to matter of this case.
5) No pronouncement as to Costs and Damages.
SO ORDERED.1
On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) modified the ruling of the
Regional Adjudicator by declaring that petitioners
are bonafide tenants of the land in question and are thus
entitled to security of tenure.2 Not satisfied with the ruling
of the DARAB, respondent brought the case on appeal to
the Court of Appeals alleging that DARAB erred in
declaring that petitioners are bonafide tenants of the
subject landholding and in holding that the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform has authority to determine whether the
said land is covered by P.D. No. 27 and RA
6657.1wphi1.nt
In their Comment on the petition, petitioners pointed out
that the petition should not be given due course since (1) it
was not accompanied by a written explanation why the
petition was not served personally to them and (2) the
certification on non-forum shopping was inadequate for
failure to conform with the prescribed contents set forth
under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court.
On September 27, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered a
decision modifying the DARABs ruling only insofar as
petitioners status is concerned and holding that they
Page 18
PARAS, J.:
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija, Guimba, Branch V in Special
Proceedings No. 812, Testate of the late Gregorio Venture,
dated October 5, 1965, removing the appellant Maria
Ventura as executrix and administratrix of the estate of the
late Gregorio Ventura, and in her place appointing the
appellees Mercedes Ventura and Gregoria Ventura as joint
administratrices of the estate. (Record on Appeal, pp. 120131.)
Appellant Maria Ventura is the illegitimate daughter of the
deceased Gregorio Ventura while Miguel Ventura and
Juana Cardona are his son and saving spouse who are also
the brother and mother of Maria Ventura. On the other
hand, appellees Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura are the
deceased's legitimate children with his former wife, the
late Paulina Simpliciano (Record on Appeal, p. 122) but the
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
JOSE
S.
MATUTE, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS (Third Division) and MATIAS
S. MATUTE, respondents.
--------------------------G.R. No. L-26085
Page 23
Page 24
Like in the aforecited Maravilla case, the instant intrafraternal controversy involves a contest over
administration, an incident in the settlement of the vast
Matute estate. Considering that the value of the said estate
is more thanP200,000, and considering further that as
enunciated in the Maravilla case thetotal value of the
subject estate determines the jurisdictional amount
anentdisputes over administration arising as incidents in a
probate or settlementproceeding, like the case at bar, then
it is indubitable that the respondent Court of Appeals does
not have jurisdiction over CA-G.R. 37039-R nor the judicial
authority to grant the writs of certiorari and prohibition
prayed fortherein.
Herein respondent insists, however, that even granting
that the actual controversy pertains to administration,
such contested administration does not encompassthe
whole estate but is limited to the collection of a P5,000
monthly rental,which sum should be the basis of the
jurisdictional amount, not the value ofthe whole estate. In
support of his thesis, the respondent alleges that duringhis
incumbency as co-administrator, five haciendas in Davao
belonging to theestate of his deceased father were
consigned to his separate administration; that in his
capacity as co-administrator he leased on February 10,
1965 said haciendas to one Mariano Nasser for P5,000 a
month; that by virtue of said leasecontract, the possession,
management and administration of the said properties
were transferred to the lessee until the expiration of the
contract; that consequently, only the collection of the
monthly rental of P5,000 remains asthe subject of the
administration.
The foregoing contention of the respondent is patently
untenable.
1. The averment of the respondent that the controversy
centers on the collectionof the alleged P5,000 monthly
rental and that the contest over administrationis limited
thereto, does not find any support in the record.
2. The rule remains that the jurisdictional amount is
determined by the totalvalue of the estate, not by value of
the particular property or portion of the estate subject to
administration, since the question of administration is
merely incidental to the principal proceeding for the
settlement and distribution ofthe whole estate.
3. The respondent's impression that a co-administrator's
trust and responsibilityare circumscribed and delimited by
the size and value of the particular propertyor portion of
the estate subject to his separate administration, is
erroneous. Although a co-administrator is designated to
admininister a portion of theestate, he is no less an
administrator
of
the
whole
because
his
judiciousmanagement of a mere parcel enhances the value
of the entire estate, while hisinefficient or corrupt
administration thereof necessarily diminishes the valueof
the whole estate. Moreover, when two or more
administrators are appointed toadminister separate parts
of a large estate they are not to discharge theirfunctions in
distant isolation but in close cooperation so as to
safeguard andpromote the general interests of the entire
estate. The teaching in Sison vs.Teodoro 2 is of positive
relevance. In the said case, the probate court
chargedagainst the entire estate the compensation of an
administrator who was assignedas judicial administrator
representing the interests of one of the two heiresses.The
other heiress whose interest was represented by the
executor opposed theaward on the ground that the said
administrator had not rendered service to theestate but
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
That the records of Civil Case No. 14208 will show that
after the Compromise Judgment was rendered on
December 5, 1962, a Petition for relief to set aside the said
Compromise Judgment was filed by two (2) of the heirs
and full-blooded sisters of plaintiff co-administrator,
Matias S. Matute, namely, Rosario and Trinidad Suazo
Matute on June 6, 1963, on grounds of (a) fraud and (b)
lack of the probate court's approval to the Compromise
Agreement, the very same grounds alleged in the present
Complaint of plaintiff Estate, a copy of the Petition for
Relief is hereto attached as Annex "C" of this Motion to
Dismiss. That on June 13, 1963, herein defendant Paterno
R. Canlas filed his Opposition to petition for Relief, and, on
June 26, 1963, a Supplementary Opposition to Petition for
Relief and refuting all the above issues raised in the
Petition for Relief, copies of which are hereto attached as
Annexes "D" and "E". Rosario and Trinidad Suazo Matute
filed Reply and defendant Paterno R. Canlas filed his
Rejoinder on July 8, 1963 attaching therewith the letterconformity to the Compromise Judgment of coadministrator, Matias S. Matute, copies of which are hereto
attached as Annexes "F" and "F-1" of this Motion to
Dismiss. That on July 13, 1963, Branch X of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, taking cognizance of Civil Case No.
14208, rightfully denied the Petition for Relief on all the
grounds stated in our Opposition to the Petition for Relief,
Supplementary Opposition, etc., and Rejoinder, a copy of
which order is hereto attached as Annex "G" of this Motion
to Dismiss.
In other words, it is the basic contention of Canlas that
both the compromise judgment of December 5,
1962rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila
(Branch X) 14 and the order of the same court dated July 13,
1963 denying the aforecited petition for relief from
judgment which sought the setting aside of the said
compromise judgment, bar by virtue of res judicata the
prosecution of the abovementioned civil case 4252 which
seeks anew the annulment of the said compromise
judgment on practically the same grounds invoked in the
aforesaid petition for relief, which grounds were justifiably
denied by the competent court.
It appears that on the same day Canlas filed his motion to
dismiss, the general administrator and heir, Carlos V.
Matute, filed his own motion to dismiss dated February 15,
1964, stating among other things, that he had never
authorized his co-administrator, Matias Matute, to file civil
case 4252 in the name of the estate and that said
complaint was filed without legal authority and is
prejudicial to the interests of the estate as it would only
entail unnecessary litigation expenses. He presented his
written conformity to the compromise judgment in his
capacity as the succeeding general administrator.
On February 27, 1964 the defendants-respondents Daniel
Rivera, Sr., Pablo del Rosario and Nicanor Vergara filed
their own joint motion to dismiss, alleging among other
things that they were innocent transferees and mortgages
for value of the properties subject matter of the complaint
and adopted as their own the motions to dismiss filed by
Canlas and Carlos V. Matute.
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
PRECY
BUNYI
and
MILA
vs.
FE S. FACTOR, Respondent.
BUNYI, Petitioners,
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
For review on certiorari are the Decision1 dated January
16, 2006 and Resolution2 dated April 26, 2006 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90397, which had affirmed the
Decision3 dated March 7, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Las Pias City, Branch 198 in Civil Case No. LP-040160.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Respondent Fe S. Factor is one of the co-owners of an 18hectare piece of land located in Almanza, Las Pias City.
The ownership of the land originated from respondents
paternal grandparents Constantino Factor and Maura
Mayuga-Factor who had been in actual, continuous,
peaceful, public, adverse and exclusive possession and
occupation of the land even before 1906.4
On December 9, 1975, the children of Constantino Factor
and Maura Mayuga-Factor filed a Petition for Original
Registration and Confirmation of Imperfect Title to the
said parcel of land, or Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Psu-253567,
before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 71.5 On December 8,
1994, the trial court granted the petition in LRC Case No.
N-9049 and declared the children of Constantino Factor
and Maura Mayuga-Factor as co-owners of the
property. 6 The children of Constantino Factor and Maura
Mayuga-Factor thereafter sold seven (7) hectares of the
Factor family property during the same year. The siblings,
except Enrique Factor, respondents father, shared and
divided the proceeds of the sale among themselves, with
the agreement that Enrique would have as his share the
portion of the property located in Antioch Street, Pilar
Executive Village, Almanza I, Las Pias City, known as the
Factor compound.
Following his acquisition thereof, Enrique caused the
construction of several houses in the compound including
the subject property, a rest house, where members of the
Factor family stayed during get-togethers and
visits.7Petitioners Precy Bunyi and her mother, Mila Bunyi,
were tenants in one of the houses inside the compound,
particularly in No. 8 Antioch St., Pilar Village, Almanza, Las
Pias City since 1999.8
When Enrique Factor died on August 7, 1993, the
administration of the Factor compound including the
subject rest house and other residential houses for lease
was transferred and entrusted to Enriques eldest child,
Gloria Factor-Labao.
Gloria Factor-Labao, together with her husband Ruben
Labao and their son Reggie F. Labao, lived in Tipaz, Taguig,
Metro Manila but visited and sometimes stayed in the rest
house because Gloria collected the rentals of the
residential houses and oversaw the Factor compound.
When Gloria died on January 15, 2001, the administration
and management of the Factor compound including the
subject rest house, passed on to respondent Fe S. Factor as
co-owner of the property. As an act of goodwill and
compassion, considering that Ruben Labao was sickly and
had no means of income, respondent allowed him to stay
at the rest house for brief, transient and intermittent visits
as a guest of the Factor family.
On May 31, 2002, Ruben Labao married petitioner Precy
Bunyi. On November 10, 2002, Ruben Labao died.
At about this time, respondent discovered that petitioners
forcibly opened the doors of the rest house and stole all
the personal properties owned by the Factor family and
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
RUFINA
LUY
LIM, petitioner,
vs.
COURT
OF
APPEALS,
AUTO
TRUCK
TBA
CORPORATION, SPEED DISTRIBUTING, INC., ACTIVE
DISTRIBUTORS,
ALLIANCE
MARKETING
CORPORATION, ACTION COMPANY, INC. respondents.
Address:
xxx
xxx
Alliance
Marketing, Inc.
xxx
xxx
xxx
BUENA, J.:
May a corporation, in its universality, be the proper subject
of and be included in the inventory of the estate of a
deceased person?
Petitioner disputes before us through the instant petition
for review on certiorari, the decision1 of the Court of
Appeals promulgated on 18 April 1996, in CA-GR SP No.
38617, which nullified and set aside the orders dated 04
July 19952, 12 September 19953 and 15 September
19954 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
93, sitting as a probate court.
Petitioner Rufina Luy Lim is the surviving spouse of late
Pastor Y. Lim whose estate is the subject of probate
proceedings in Special Proceedings Q-95-23334, entitled,
"In Re: Intestate Estate of Pastor Y. Lim Rufina Luy Lim,
represented by George Luy, Petitioner".1wphi1.nt
Private respondents Auto Truck Corporation, Alliance
Marketing Corporation, Speed Distributing, Inc., Active
Distributing, Inc. and Action Company are corporations
formed, organized and existing under Philippine laws and
which owned real properties covered under the Torrens
system.
On 11 June 1994, Pastor Y. Lim died intestate. Herein
petitioner, as surviving spouse and duly represented by
her nephew George Luy, fried on 17 March 1995, a joint
petition5 for the administration of the estate of Pastor Y.
Lim before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
Private respondent corporations, whose properties were
included in the inventory of the estate of Pastor Y. Lim,
then filed a motion6 for the lifting of lis pendens and
motion7 for exclusion of certain properties from the estate
of the decedent.
In an order8 dated 08 June 1995, the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, Branch 93, sitting as a probate court,
granted the private respondents' twin motions, in this
wise:
Wherefore, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby
ordered to lift, expunge or delete the annotation of lis
pendens on Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 116716,
116717, 116718, 116719 and 5182 and it is hereby further
ordered that the properties covered by the same titles as
well as those properties by (sic) Transfer Certificate of
Title Nos. 613494, 363123, 236236 and 263236 are
excluded from these proceedings.
Speed
Distributing
Inc.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Auto
Truck
TBA Corp.
2251
Roosevelt
Quezon City.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Active
Distributors,
Inc.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Action
Company
Title
Location
SO ORDERED.
Avenue,
Page 39
xxx
xxx
k. Auto Truck
xxx
TCT No. Sto. Domingo
TBA
617726
Corporation
Cainta, Rizal
q.
Alliance TCT No. Prance, Metro
Marketing
27896
Manila
Copies of the above-mentioned Transfer Certificate of Title
and/or Tax Declarations are hereto attached as Annexes
"C" to "W".
xxx
xxx
xxx
and
put
up
SO ORDERED.
On 15 September 1995, the probate court acting on an ex
parte motion filed by petitioner, issued an order13 the
dispositive portion of which reads:
Wherefore, the parties and the following banks concerned
herein under enumerated are hereby ordered to comply
strictly with this order and to produce and submit to the
special administrators, through this Honorable Court
within (5) five days from receipt of this order their
respective records of the savings/current accounts/time
deposits and other deposits in the names of Pastor Lim
and/or corporations above-mentioned, showing all the
transactions made or done concerning savings/current
accounts from January 1994 up to their receipt of this
court order.
xxx
xxx
xxx
SO ORDERED.
Private respondent filed a special civil action
for certiorari14, with an urgent prayer for a restraining
order or writ of preliminary injunction, before the Court of
Appeals questioning the orders of the Regional Trial Court,
sitting as a probate court.
On 18 April 1996, the Court of Appeals, finding in favor of
herein private respondents, rendered the assailed
decision15, the decretal portion of which declares:
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
Page 40
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
the
rule
in PEREIRA
vs. COURT
OF
Page 41
xxx
xxx
Page 42
SO ORDERED.
AND
TRUST
Page 43