ROLANDO TING VS HEIRS OF DIEGO LIRIO

In a special proceeding the purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact; in land

registration proceedings, the ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be
established. After the ownership has been proved and confirmed by a judicial
declaration, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when
the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and the winning party
desires to oust him.
Facts: Judge Marigomen of the CFI of Cebu granted the (LRC) application filed by the
Spouses Lirio for registration of title. Such decision became final and executory. Then
on Feb. 1977, Ting, the petitioner in this case, filed with the RTC of Cebu an application
for registration of title to the same lot. The Heirs of Lirio filed an opposition to the
petitioners application calling attention to the LRC case which was filed on January
1977 which had became final and executor.
The RTC of Cebu dismissed the petition on the ground of res judicata.
Issue: whether or not the decision in LRC decided constitutes res judicata?
Ruling: The petition fails.
As stated in PD 1529, the judgment rendered in a land registration proceeding becomes
final upon the expiration of 30 days.
In a registration proceeding instituted for the registration of a private land with or without
opposition, the judgment of the court confirming the title of the applicant or oppositor as
the case may be and ordering its registration in his name constitutes res judicata
against the whole world.
In the provision of the rules of court to the effect that judgment may be enforced within 5
years by motion and after 5 years but within 10 years by an action. This provision of the
rules refers to civil action and is not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land
registration case.
Pizarro vs. CA
August 6, 1980
Facts: petitioner Pizarro is the surviving spouse of the later Aurelio Pizarro while the
respondents are their children. Upon death of Aurelio, special proceeding (intestate
estate) was instituted by petitioners. Listed among the properties of the estate were
parcels of land situated in Palma Gil and Claro M. Recto Davao City. The court upon the
agreement of the parties appointed the clerk of court as administrator of the estate. The
administrator filed a motion for authority to sell the properties located at Agdao and Jose

Palma Gil Streets Davao City to settle the debts of the estate. The heirs opposed the
motion stating the claims against the estate had not yet been properly determined and
that the sale of the Agdao would be more sufficient to cover the obligations of the estate
which they claimed were exaggerated. The Court authorized the sale since the majority
of the heirs were in favor of the sale.
The administrator moved for the approval of the conditional sale to the Agdao property
to Angliongto for a total consideration of P146 820 payable in 6 installments. It was
stipulated that the vendor was to cause ejectment of all occupants in the property. The
heirs filed a motion to set aside the order authorizing the sale on the ground that they
were negotiating for the sale of the said lot to Mr. Gonzales. The court denied the
motion to set aside.
The administrator presented another Motion for Authority to sell the Claro M. recto lot
because the proceed of the sale of agdao lot was not sufficient to cover the obligations
of the estate.
A motion was filed praying that the administrator be asked to resign or be removed for
having abused his powers and duties and that letters of administration be granted
instead to Filomena Pizarro.
Motion for cancellation or rescission of conditional contract of sale of the Agdao lot
unnecessary because the sale of the lot in Claro M. Recto is more than sufficient to
settle his obligation of the estate
Administrator presented a motion to approve final sale of the Agdao lot to spouses
Angliongtos because tha latter had paid the full balance. The court approved the same.
TCT was issued in favor of Angliongtos
The heirs then filed a complaint for cancellation of authority to sell and rescission and
annulment of deed of sale and damages with preliminary injunction against Angliongtos
spouses, administrator.
CA; dismissed the petition opining that the CFI of Davao did not abuse its discretion in
approving the intestate case and even granting it the proper remedy was appeal and not
certiorari. Said dismissal was final thus the remedy is appeal.
Issue: whether or not the court of appeals correct in upholding the decision of the RTC?
Ruling: Appeal not being speedy enough to bring about the desired objective and to be
of any utility to the heirs their avilment of certiorari must be held to have been proper.
Petitioners sought to achieve in filing the rescission case was to rescind the sale mainly
for failure of the vendees to pay the full consideration thereof which is a valid ground for

rescission. That cause of action was within the judicial competence and authority over
civil cases the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation. It was
beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court whose main province was the settlement of
the estate. As a matter of fact, the rescission case was instituted after the probate court
itself had stated that petitioners cause of action was not within its authority to resolve
but should be filed with the competent court.

Gabatan vs. CA
Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased
must be made in the proper special proceedings in court and not in ordinary suit for
recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must take precedence over the
action for recovery of possession and ownership. The court has consistently ruled that
the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that
such declaration can only be made in special proceeding.
Facts: the subject of the controversy is the land located at Cagayan De oro which was
owned by Juan Gabatan. The respondent alleged that she is the sole owner of the
property having inherited the same from her deceased mother, Hermogena Gabatan.
Respondent stated that her mother is the only child of Juan Gabatan and his wife
Laurena gabatan. Respondent alleged that upon death of Juan Gabatan, , the lot was
entrusted to his brother Teofilo for administration. They demanded the return of the land
but to no avail.
Petitioners denied that the respondents mother is not the daughter of Juan gabatan
because the latter died single and he was survived by his brother and 2 sisters. That
they have been in actual, physical, open, public, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted
possession for more than 50 years.
RTC/CA: in favor of respondent. Reconvey the lot to the respondent
Ruling: Grant the petition.
There appears to be only one parcel of land being claimed by the contending parties as
their inheritance from Juan Gabatan. It would be more practical to dispense with the a
separate proceeding for the termination of the status of the respondent as the sole heir
of Juan Gabatan specially when the parties had voluntarily submitted the issue to the
RTC and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship.
Respondents mother birth certificate which would have been the best evidence of
Hermogenas relationship to Juan Gabatan was never offered as evidence at the RTC.
Neither did respondent present any authentic document or final judgment categorically

evidencing Hermogenas relationship to Juan Gabatan. None of the witness had

personal knowledge of the fact of marriage of Juan to Laureana or the fact of birth of
Hermogena. The deed of absolute sale presented by the respondent wherein it was
stated that Hermogena is the heir of Juan Gabatan, which is a mere photocopy cannot
be considered as admissible under the best evidence rule wherein she does not give
the whereabouts of the original
HEIRS OF YPON VS RICAFORTE
FACTS: petitioner together with some of their cousins filed a complaint for cancellation
of title and reconveyance with damages against the respondent. In their complaint, they
alleged that Magdala Ypon died intestate and childless. Respondent claiming to be the
sole heir executed an affidavit of self adjudication and caused cancellation of the
certificate of title leading to their subsequent transfer in his name.
Respondent presented his certificate of Live birth, 2 letter from Polytechnic School and
certified true copy of his passport.
RTC: no cause of action against Gadioso. It observed that while the plaintiffs had
established their relationship with Magdaleno in a previous special proceeding for the
issuance of letters of administration this did not mean that they are considered as
compulsory heir. Gaudioso established that he is the son of Magdaleno thus a
compulsory heir.
Issue: whether or not the dismissal was proper because there is no cause of action
against Gadioso?
Ruling: Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a
right of another. It is determined in the allegations of the complaint.
In this case, the petitioners alleged that they are the lawful heirs of Magdaleno and
based on the same, prayed that Self Adjudication executed by Gadioso be decalred null
and void. But the rule states that determination of lawful heirs should be made in the
corresponding special proceeding preclude the RTC in an ordinary action for
cancellation of title and reconveyance. In the case of Gabatan vs. CA, the court ruled
that the need to institute a separate proceeding for the determination of heiiship may be
dispensed with for the sake of practicality as when the parties in the civil case had
voluntarily submitted the issue of heirship and the RTC had consequently rendered
judgment thereon pr when the special proceeding had been instituted but had been
finally closed and terminated and hence cannot be reopened.
In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions or those of similar nature appear to exist.
Hence there lies the need to institute the proper special proceedings in order to

determine heirship of the partied involved ultimately resulting to the dismissal of the civil
case.
LIMOS VS ODONES
Facts: respondents filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed, Title and Damages against
petitioners before the RTC. The complaint alleged that respondent are the owners of
land located at Tarlac by virtue of an Extra judicial Succession of Estate and Sale
executed by the surviving grandchildren and heirs of Donita Lardizabal in whom the
original titles was registered. It took a while before respondents decided to register the
document of conveyance and when they did they found out that the OCT was cancelled
and transferred to the name of the petitioners. Petitioners were able to secure the TCT
by virtue of a deed of absolute sale allegedly executed by Donata Lardizabal and her
husband. Respondent sought cancellation of the TCT on the ground that the signatures
of Donita Lardizabal were forgeries. They also claim that their vendors are the only heirs
of lardizabal. RTC denied the complaint.
CA: petitioner filed special civil action. CA denied. It can be be proven in a full blown
hearing.
Issue: whether or not the the status of the heirs of Donita Lardizabal who sold the
property to the respondent must first be established in a special proceeding?
Ruling: Denied petition.
In both case, this court held that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a
special proceeding and not in a civil cation. It must be noted that in Yaptinchay and
Enriquez, plaintiffs action for annulment of title was anchored on their alleged status as
heirs of the original owner whereas in this case, the respondent claim is rooted on the
sale transaction. Respondent are enforcing their right as buyers on good faith and for
value and not as heirs of the original owner.
UY KIAO ENG VS NIXON LEE
Facts: Respondent (LEE) alleging that his father passed away on June 22, 1992 and
left a holographic will which is now in the custody of the petitioner (mother) filed a
petition for mandamus with damages before the RTC to compel the petitioner to
produce the will so that the probate proceeding for the allowance could be instituted.
According to the respondent he already requested her mother to settle and liquidate the
estate of her father but the petitioner refuse.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, lack of cause of
action and for non compliance with a condition precedent for the filing thereof.

RTC: petition dismissed.

CA: denied for lack of merit. Writ of mandamus would issue only in instances when no
other remedy would be available and sufficient to afford redress. Rule 76, in an action
for the settlement of the estate of his deceased father, respondent could ask for the
presentation or production and for the approval of the probate of the holographic will. He
failed to proved that the will had in her mothers custody. CA amended its decision
ordering that the will be produced.
Petitioner contends that the petition for mandamus is not the proper remedy and that
the testimonial evidence used by the appellate court is inadmissible.
Ruling: petition granted. The CAs decision revered.
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction in the
name of the state or sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, board or to
some coporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty which duty
result from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from the
operation of law. It recognized the public character of the remedy and clearly
excludes the idea that it may be resorted for the purpose of enforcing the
performance of a duty in which the public has no interest. It will not be issued to
compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which duty not to
do or give the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. Not lie to
enforce a purely private contract right and will not lie against individual unless
some obligation in the nature of a public or quasi public duty is impose.
In this case, mandamus cannot be availed because there lies a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the course of law. Considering that he has in possession a
copy of the will, the rules does not prevent him from instituting probate
proceedings for the allowance of the will whether the same is in his possession
or not.