I.

Special Proceedings in General

Rombe vs Asiatrust
SUMMARY: Rombe filed a Petition for the Declaration of a State of Suspension of
Payments with Approval of Proposed Rehabilitation Plan with the Malolos RTC,
Branch 7. Branch 7 issued a Stay Order suspending enforcement of claims, but later
dismissed the case because of misrepresentations in the petition, and because
Rombe was insolvent. Anticipating a foreclosure proceeding by Asiatrust, one of its
creditors, Rombe filed a Complaint for Annulment of Documents and Damages with
Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Injunction, which was raffled
to Branch 15, which granted a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Rombe.
Rombe argued that the writ of preliminary injunction issued by Branch 15 does not
affect in any way the Branch 7 Order since the two cases involve separate and
distinct causes of action. The SC agreed, but for a different reason. The petition for
rehabilitation was a special proceeding, which the SC has clarified in an A.M. and
thus it need not state a cause of action. Thus the writ did not affect in anyway the
earlier Branch 7 Order.
DOCTRINE:
Special proceeding: summary and non-adversarial in nature, not needing a
statement of a cause of action. It is one that seeks to establish the status of a
party or a particular fact.
As provided in section 1, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules on Corporate Recovery,
the status or fact sought to be established is the inability of the corporate
debtor to pay its debts when they fall due so that a rehabilitation plan,
containing the formula for the successful recovery of the corporation, may be
approved in the end. It does not seek a relief from an injury caused by
another party. Hence, a petition for rehabilitation need not state a cause of
action

II. Special Proceedings under the Rules of Court

A. Settlement of Estates
1. Venue and Jurisdiction

Garcia Fule vs CA
SUMMARY: Virginia Fule filed with the CFI of Laguna a petition for letters
administration for the estate of Amado. She alleged that Amado owned property in
Laguna, and that Amado was a Constitutional Delegate for Laguna, and that his last
place of residence is Laguna. Preciosa Garcia opposed the petition saying that
Amado's last place of residence is not in Laguna, but is rather in Quezon City. SC
ruled that in the present case, evidence shows that Amado's last place of residence
was in Quezon City. Thus, the venue was improperly laid in Laguna.

DOCTRINE: Sec 1 Rule 73 prescribes the venue for the settlement of a decedent's
estate as the province in which he resides at the time of his death. The term
resides means actual residence as distinguished from legal residence or
domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given
place, while domicile requires bodily presence and also an intention to make the
place one's domicile. No particular length of time of residence is required; however,
the residence must be more than temporary.

Jao vs CA
SUMMARY: Rodolfo filed a motion to dismiss his brother Perico's petition for the
issuance of letters of administration of their parents estate, on the ground of
improper venue. However, SC did not find merit in his claim that it is the domicile of
his deceased parents which should actually be considered in determining the proper
venue and not the residence at the time of their death. SC held that Rule 73 Sec 1
contemplated actual and not legal residence.
DOCTRINE: Venue for civil actions and that for special proceedings have one and the
same meaning. "Residence" in the context of venue provisions means nothing more
than a person's actual residence or place of abode, provided he resides therein with
continuity and consistency.

Lee vs CA
Summary: While the estate proceeding of his father was pending, Tabada sold all his
rights and interests over the estate to Lee and Raganas. After the estate proceeding
was terminated, Tabada again sold all his rights and interests over the estate to
spouses Saldana. When 3 new properties allegedly belonging to the estate were
found, Tabada again sold his share to the spouses Saldana, who sold such share to
Villareal and Tan. Lee and Raganas then filed an action to quiet title over the 3 new
parcels of land sold by Tabada to spouses Saldana, with Constancio Cabreros later
also claiming ownership over said parcels of land. The CFI in the action to quiet title
archived said case and directed the reopening of estate proceedings. The SC ruled
that the CFI in the action to quiet title should have ruled on the issue of ownership,
instead of directing to reopen the estate proceedings.
Doctrine:
Probate courts have no jurisdiction to determine with finality conflicts of
ownership.
A question of ownership must be litigated in a separate action, except where
a party merely prays for the inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of any
particular property, in which case the probate court may pass upon
provisionally the question of inclusion or exclusion, but without prejudice to
its final determination in an appropriate action

Valera vs Inserto
SUMMARY: In a special proceeding re the settlement of estate of Sps Rafael Valera
and Consolacion Sarrosa, there were conflicting claims over a fishpond. The
administrators of the estate aver that such property must be returned to the estate
for them to render accounting, while the heirs of a daughter (Teresa) of the spouses
and their lessee, aver that the property is owned by the heirs of Teresa. The Probate
Court thus issued an order which was merely provisional in character, ordering the
heirs to reconvey the fishpond. The motion for execution of such order was granted.
The heirs and the lessee thus questioned the jurisdiction of the Probate Court to
resolve ownership of the fishpond. CA ruled in their favor. The administrators then
filed petitions. SC dismissed the petitions and HELD that the Probate Courts order
was not for the purpose of settling the issue definitely and permanently, but merely
to determine whether it should or should not be included in the inventory.
DOCTRINE:
GENERAL RULE: A CFI (now RTC), acting as a Probate Court, exercises but
limited jurisdiction, and thus has no power to take cognizance of and
determine the issue of title to property claimed by a third person adversely
to the decedent, unless:
EXCEPTIONS:
o the claimant and all the other parties having legal interest in the
property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the
question to the Probate Court for adjudgment, OR
o the interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced

Coca vs Pangilinan
SUMMARY: Sps. Pangilinan died intestate and were survived by their heirs - Prima,
children of Concepcion and children of Francisco. A special proceeding for the
settlement of their estate was instituted in the CFI which included a homestead
consisting of 2 parcels of land. A motion was filed to exclude 12 ha of the land. CFI,
acting as a probate court, excluded 18 hectares from the inventory. The
administrator then presented a project of partition which was opposed by the heirs
of Francisco since the share of Prima and heirs of Concepcion are larger than theirs.
CFI deferred action on the project of partition until determined in an ordinary,
separate action. CFI thereafter approved the project partition but excluded the 12 ha
being claimed by Franciscos heirs. Coca argues that CFI, acting as a probate court,
cannot exclude the 12 ha since it has no jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the
12-ha portion of Lot No. 1112. HELD: CFI has jurisdiction. As a general rule, a
probate court may not decide a question of title or ownership and should be
ventilated in a separate action. The exception is when the probate court had already
received evidence on the ownership of the 12-hectare portion during the hearing of
the motion for its exclusion from the inventory and the only interested parties are
the heirs who have all appeared in the intestate proceeding. Francisco Pangilinan
should file in the intestate proceeding, a motion in the form of a complaint wherein
they should set forth their claim for the 12 ha in question.
DOCTRINE: Whether a particular matter should be resolved by the CFI in the
exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited probate jurisdiction is in reality
not a jurisdictional question. In essence, it is a procedural question involving a mode
of practice "which may be waived. The probate court may provisionally pass upon
the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property
without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action.
Portugal vs Portugal-Beltran
SUMMARY: Jose Portugal had 2 marriages. Petitioners were his wife and son from
2nd marriage while respondent was his child from 1st marriage. When Portugal
died intestate, respondent executed an Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of
Estate of Deceased Person, adjudicating to herself the Caloocan parcel of land. The
Petitioners then filed annulment of the said affidavit as well as the newly issued TCT
in the name of respondent. An issue then arose on W/N petitioners have to institute
a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs before they can pursue the
case for annulment of respondents Affidavit. This court ruled that to institute a
special proceeding is impractical in this case. There is no compelling reason to still
subject Portugals estate to administration proceedings since a determination of
petitioners status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners.
DOCTRINE:
If adverse parties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to
the special proceedings for its settlement, and special proceedings are
pending, or if there are no special proceedings filed but there is, under the
circumstances of the case, a need to file one, then the determination of,
among other issues, heirship should be raised and settled in said special
proceedings.
Where special proceedings had been instituted but had been finally closed
and terminated, however, or if a putative heir has lost the right to have
himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and he can no longer
ask for its re- opening, then an ordinary civil action can be filed for his
declaration as heir in order to bring about the annulment of the partition or
distribution or adjudication of a property or properties belonging to the
estate of the deceased.

Heirs of Gabatan vs CA
SUMMARY: Lourdes Pacana filed an action to recover a piece of property which she
allegedly owned and had inherited from her grandfather, Juan, under whose name
the land was registered. The land was in the possession of the Heirs of Teofilo,
brother of Pacanas alleged grandfather. The SC relaxed the rules on determination
of status and ruled that Lourdes was not the sole heir of Juan, as she had not
provided any reliable and credible evidence on which to base her claim.
DOCTRINE: The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be
made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for
recovery of ownership and possession of property. The trial court cannot make a
declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can
only be made in a special proceeding.

Gregorio vs Madarang
summary: In the intestate proceedings of the estate of Casimiro Sr, his son Jose
insists of the inclusion of Lot 829B4B in the inventory. Vicente, together w his other
siblings, insist that it was given to him by way of donation. RTC ordered exclusion.
CA agreed but granted Joses petition to withdraw. petitioners filed an MR
questioning the withdrawal. CA upheld withdrawal as well as exclusion. petitioners
contend that CA should not have ruled on exclusion. SC held it was proper as it was
included in petitioners prayer. SC also held that the property should be included as
it was a donation inter vivos
doctrine: While a probate court, being of special and limited jurisdiction, cannot act
on questions of title and ownership, it can, for purposes of inclusion or exclusion in
the inventory of properties of a decedent, make a provisional determination of
ownership, without prejudice to a final determination through a separate action in a
court of general jurisdiction.

2. Summary Settlement of Estates

Pereira vs CA
SUMMARY: Andres died intestate and was survived by his wife of 10 months and his
sister. His sister filed for the issuance of letters of administration for his estate in
her favor. The wife opposed, contending that there was no estate left. The SC ruled
that even if there was estate left, administration is not proper as there is no good
and compelling reason.
DOCTRINE:
General rule: Administration.
Exception: R 74 S 1 (heirs of lawful age, no debts due
from the estate they may agree in writing to partition property without judicial
administration)
In the case of the exception, an administration proceeding is allowed only when a
good and compelling reason exists.