. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA V.

COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE

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: W/N 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).