Portugal V Portugal-Beltran

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II – ATTY. RAMON S.
ESGUERRA
PORTUGAL vs PORTUGAL-BELTRAN AUTHOR: Lim, Acdea R.

[G.R. No. 155555; August 16, 2005] NOTES:
TOPIC: Requisites for Extra Judicial Settlement
PONENTE: Carpio Morales, J.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
In the present case the only property of the intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it, under the circumstances of the case, to a
special proceeding which could be long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status of petitioners as heirs is not only impractical; it is burdensome to the
estate with the costs and expenses of an administration proceeding. And it is superfluous in light of the fact that the parties to the civil case - subject of the present
case, could and had already in fact presented evidence before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.
FACTS:
 On 1942, Jose Portugal married Paz Lazo
 On 1948, Portugal married Isabel de la Puerta
 On 1949, Isabel gave birth to Douglas Portugal Jr.
 On 1950, Paz gave birth to Aleli Portugal
 On 1968 Portugal and his 4 siblings executed a deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Waiver of rights over the estate of their father, over a parcel of land in
Caloocan in favor of Jose Portugal
 On 1984 Paz died
 On 1985 Portugal died
 On 1988 Aleli executed an “Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Deceased Person” adjudicating to herself the parcel of land in Caloocan.
 Petitioners, Isabel and Douglas filed a complaint against Aleli for the annulment of the Affidavit of Adjudication
 Lower court dismissed for lack of cause of action stating that there is a need to institute first, a separate special proceeding to determine their status as heirs.
ISSUE(S):
WON Parties have to institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs (NO)
HELD:
Petition granted, no need for separate special proceeding to determine status as heirs.
RATIO:
 The common doctrine in Litam, Solivio and Guilas in which the adverse parties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to the special
proceedings for its settlement is that if the 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.
 In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or wrongly that she was the sole heir to Portugal's estate, executed on February 15, 1988 the questioned
Affidavit of Adjudication under the second sentence of Rule 74, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an exception to the general rule that
when a person dies leaving a property, it should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order
established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or in case he did, he failed to name an executor therein.
 It appearing, however, that in the present case the only property of the intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it, under
the circumstances of the case, to a special proceeding which could be long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status of petitioners as heirs is not
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II – ATTY. RAMON S. ESGUERRA
only impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and expenses of an administration proceeding. And it is superfluous in light of the fact that
the parties to the civil case - subject of the present case, could and had already in fact presented evidence before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction
over the case upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.
 In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compelling reason to still subject Portugal's estate to administration proceedings since
a determination of petitioners' status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioner
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

Portugal V Portugal-Beltran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Portugal V Portugal-Beltran

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Portugal V Portugal-Beltran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II – ATTY. RAMON S.

PORTUGAL vs PORTUGAL-BELTRAN AUTHOR: Lim, Acdea R.

You might also like