MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA V.

COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE

G.R. No. L-45460, February 25, 1938

Facts:

The Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna filed in the CFI a petition claiming the Hacienda de San
Pedro Tunasan by the right of Escheat. Colegio de San Jose, claiming to be the exclusive owner of the
said hacienda, assailed the petition upon the grounds that the petition does not allege sufficient facts to
entitle the applicants to the remedy prayed for. Carlos Young, claiming to be a lessee of the hacienda
under a contract legally entered with Coelegio de San Jose, also intervened in the case. Municipal
Council of San Pedro, Laguna objected to the appearance and intervention of CdSJ and Carlos Young
but such objection was overruled. Furthermore the lower court dismissed the petition filed for by
Municipal Council of San Pedro.

Issue:

Whether or not the petition for escheats should be dismissed?

Ruling:

Yes.

According to Sec. 750 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now Sec 1 of Rule 91), the essential
facts which should be alleged in the petition, which are jurisdictional because they confer jurisdiction
upon the CFI are:
1. That a person died intestate or without leaving any will,
2. That he has left real or personal property and he was the owner thereof,
3. That he has not left any heir or person by law entitled to the property, and
4. That the one who applies for the escheat is the municipality where deceased has his last
residence or in case he should have no residence in the country, the municipality where the
property is situated.

Sec. 751 (now Sec 3 of Rule 91) provides that after the publications and trial, if the court finds
that the deceased is in fact the owner of real and personal property situated in the country and has not
left any heir or other person entitled there to, it may order, after payment of debts and other legal
expenses, the escheat and in such case, it shall adjudicate the personal property to the municipality
where the deceased had his last residence and the real property to the municipality/ies where they are
situated.

Escheat is a proceeding whereby the real and personal property of a deceased person become
the property of the State upon his death without leaving any will or legal heirs. It is not an ordinary
action but a special proceeding. The proceeding should be commenced by a petition and not by a
complaint.

In a special proceeding for Escheat under section 750to 752 (now sec 1 to 3 of Rule 91), the
petitioner is not the sole and exclusive interested party. Any person alleging to have a direct right or
Interest in the property sought to be escheated is likewise an interested and necessary party and may
appear and oppose the petition for escheat.
 When a petition for escheat does not state facts which entitle the petitioner to the remedy prayed
for and even admitting them hypothetically, it is clear that there is no ground for the court to proceed to
the Inquisition provided by law, an interested party should not be disallowed from filing a motion to
dismiss the petition which is untenable from all standpoint. And when the motion to dismiss is
entertained upon this ground the petition may be dismissed unconditionally.

In this case, Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young had a right to intervene as an alleged
exclusive owner and a lessee of the property respectively.

The Municipal base its right to escheat on the fact that the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan,
temporal property of the Father of the Society of Jesus, were confiscated by the order of the King of
Spain. From the moment it was confiscated, it became the property of the commonwealth of the
Philippines. Given this fact, it is evident that the Municipality cannot claim that the same be escheated
to them, because it is no longer the case of real property owned by a deceased person who has not left
any person which may legally claim it (2nd requirement lacking).