Você está na página 1de 5

#6 Municipality of Magallon et al vs.

Bezore, GR The initial proceedings were in the nature of


# L-14157, Oct. 20, 1960 escheat proceedings and NOT for the settlement of
the estate of deceased persons. Since the CFI
Spec Pro Doctrine: A court that has acquired its
acquired jurisdiction by way of the publication of
jurisdiction by virtue of a publication of the petition
the petition for escheat, it CANNOT be converted
for escheat CANNOT be converted into one for the
into one for the distribution of the properties of the
distribution of the properties of the decedents.
said decedents. For such proceedings to be
FACTS: The Municipalities of Magallon, et. al. instituted, the proper parties must be presented and
instituted estate proceedings in the CFI of Negros the proceedings should comply with the
Occidental for the estates of the deceased Anne requirements of the necessary rule.
Fallon Murphy, Thomas Fallon (married to Julia
HENCE, the CFI did not have any power to
Fallon) of their various real properties (agricultural
order, or to proceed with the distribution of the
& residential) as well as rental deposits with WBC
estates of the decedents in these escheat
Ltd. for the benefit of said municipalities. The CFI
proceedings, and adjudicate the properties to the
judge found the petition to be in order and ordered
oppositors.
the publication for escheat proceedings and the
hearing to be set. #7 Divino vs. Hilario, GR # L-44658, January 24,
1936
The petition for escheat was instituted since
the municipalities believed that Anne, Thomas, and Spec Pro Doctrine: A court cannot acquire
Julia had died without heirs. They all died in jurisdiction over escheat proceedings if the notice
California on different dates. of publication requirement under the rules are not
followed. It also follows that such court cannot
An opposition to the escheat proceedings
grant any remedy under the rules if it did not take
was filed by Ignatius Bezore et. al. He claims that
cognizance over the escheat proceedings.
he is a nephew of the decedents because his mother
was their sister. Others also claimed to be legatees FACTS: In the CFI of Davao, Tan Kui Sing (TKS)
of Anne and other relatives in the case at bar. All began intestate proceedings for the deceased Tan
oppositors are praying that the petition for escheat Chay (TC). Part of TKSs petition said that TC was
be dismissed and that the properties of the decedent party to a civil case pending appeal to this court,
be distributed among them. and while the properties were still being
determined, a special admin. be appointed to duly
The CFI, after uncovering that Thomas died
represent the deceased in the appeal. CFI then
with an heir (his wife) and Anne died leaving a will
appointed Ang Liongto (AL) as SA. AL made an
(in which she disposed of all her properties), denied
inventory and found out that he had left P5k in cash
the petition for escheat proceedings of the
in the possession of Philippine Foreign Trading &
municipalities. However, the prayers of the
Company (PFTC) and P390 as rents of a house.
opppositors were denied since the evidence they
Eventually, the CFI ordered the petition of TKS be
submitted was insufficient to sustain their claims.
set for trial and ordered that the notice of trial be
As a response, the oppositors appealed said
published in the newspaper El Magindanaw once
decision.
per week for three consecutive weeks. The notice
ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI judge had authority WAS NOT PUBLISHED.
to settle the estate of the deceased parties in favor of
Since the notice was not published, no one
the oppositors.
appeared during the hearing and the CFI eventually
HELD: NO. declared that TC died without any legal heirs. The
P5k sum was acquired by the municipal president of
Guianga. Emilia Divino (ED), guardian of weeks before the time appointed by the court
Bienvenido, Esperanze, and Narciso, all surnamed to make inquisition.
Loo Tan y Divino, appeared in the case and filed a
motion to set aside the decree escheating the P5k to SEC. 752. Right of heir, and so forth
the municipality of Guianga, to declare the minors subsequently appearing. If a devise,
the only heirs of TC, and to adjudicate to them by legatee, heir, widow, husband, or other
equal share the sum of P5k. EDs legal basis was person entitled to such estate, within
Section 752 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which seventeen years from the date of such
the minors could avail. decree, appears and files a claim with the
court to such estate, he shall have possession
ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI acquired of the same, or if sold, the municipality shall
jurisdiction over the escheat proceedings over the be accountable to him for the avails, after
estate of the deceased TC. deducting reasonable charges for the care of
HELD: NO. the estate; but if a claim is not made within
the time mentioned, it shall be forever
Sections 750 and 752 of the Code of Civil barred.
Procedure, applicable to case, provide as follows:
Since the notice of publication in a
SEC. 750. Procedure when persons dies newspaper of general circulation did not occur, the
intestate without heirs. When a person CFI then did not acquire any jurisdiction. However,
dies intestate, seized of real or personal by it is also logical that the CFI cannot grant the
law entitled to the same, the president and remedy afforded by Section 752 since the CFI did
municipal council of the municipality where not effectively take cognizance of the escheat case
the deceased last resided, if he was an because of the fatal flaw of not having the
inhabitant of these Islands, or of the publication happen. Nevertheless, the SC granted
municipality in which he had estate, if he the petition and resolved that the sum of P5k be
resided out of the Islands, may, on behalf of returned by the municipality of Guianga and be
the municipality, file a petition with the deposited with the clerk of court for distribution
Court of First Instance of the province for an among the legal heirs of the deceased TC.
inquisition in the premises; the court shall
thereupon appoint a time and place of #8 Dionisio Rellosa vs. Gaw Chee Hun, GR # L-
hearing, and deciding on such petition, cause 1411, September 29, 1953
a notice thereof to be published in some Spec Pro Doctrine: Escheat proceedings may be
newspaper of general circulation in the used to recover a land illegally owned by an alien.
province of which the deceased was last an
inhabitant, if within the Philippine Islands, FACTS: On February 2, 1944, Dionisio Rellosa
and if not, in some newspaper of general sold to Gaw Chee Hun a parcel of land, together
circulation in the province in which he had with the house erected thereon, situated in the City
estate. The notice shall recite the substance of Manila, Philippines, for the sum of P25,000. The
of the facts and request set forth in the vendor remained in possession of the property under
petition, the time and place at which persons a contract of lease entered into on the same date
claiming the estate may appear and be heard between the same parties.
before the court, and shall be published at
Alleging that the sale was executed subject
least six weeks successively, the last of
to the condition that the vendee, being a Chinese
which publications shall be at least six
citizen, would obtain the approval of the Japanese
Military Administration in accordance with (seirei) regarding our natural resources without doing
No. 6 issued on April 2, 1943, by the Japanese violence to the principle of pari delicto.
authorities, and said approval has not been obtained,
#9 RCBC vs. Hi-Tri Development, GR # 192413,
and that, even if said requirement were met, the sale
June 13, 2012
would at all events be void under article XIII,
section 5, of our Constitution. Spec Pro Doctrine: A bank has a responsibility to
inform its depositors that a deposit has been
The vendor instituted the present action in
inactive for more than 10 years, and it may be
the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking the
subjected to escheat proceedings by the Republic. If
annulment of the sale.
it is shown substantially that the depositors have
The SC applied the In Pari Delicto rule in not given up their rights over said deposit, the
the case at bar. It also held that the sale in question escheat proceedings will fail as shown in the case at
is null and void, but plaintiff is barred from taking bar.
the present action under the Pari Delicto principle.
FACTS: Millan paid the spouses Bakunawa a little
ISSUE: Whether or not the SC decision of leaving
above P1M as downpayment for the purchase of six
both parties in pari delicto creates a dangerous (6) lots, with the spouses giving Millan the Owners
precedent of allowing an alien in owning land in our Copies of TCTs of said lots.
country.
HELD: NO. Due to some obstacles, the sale did not push
through. In effect, the spouses rescinded the sale
There are at present two ways by which this and offered to return to Millan her downpayment.
situation may be remedied, to wit: However, Millan refused to receive said amount.
(1) action for reversion, and; Consequently, the spouses, through their company
Hi-Tri, took out on October 28, 1991, a Managers
(2) escheat to the state. Check from RCBC-Ermita in the amount of P1M
An action for reversion is slightly different (same as the downpayment amount) payable to
from escheat proceeding, but in its effects they are Millans company Rosmil and used this as one of
the same. They only differ in procedure. Escheat their basis for a complaint against Millan.
proceedings may be instituted as a consequence of a
The Spouses Bakunawa retained custody of
violation of article XIII, section 5 of our
RCBCs Managers Check and refrained from
Constitution, which prohibits transfers of private
cancelling or negotiating it. Millan was also
agricultural lands to aliens, whereas an action for
informed that the Managers Check was available
reversion is expressly authorized by the Public Land
for her withdrawal, she being the payee.
Act (sections 122, 123, and 124 of Commonwealth
Act No. 141).
On January, 31, 2003, without the
There are two ways now open to our knowledge of Spouses Bakunawa, RCBC reported
government whereby it could implement the the P1M credit existing in favor of Rosmil to the
doctrine of this Court in the Krivenko case thereby Bureau of Treasury as among its unclaimed
putting in force and carrying to its logical balances as of the said date. On December 14,
conclusion the mandate of our Constitution. By 2006, the Republic, through the OSG, filed with the
following either of these remedies, or by approving RTC the action for Escheat.
an implementary law as above suggested, we can
enforce the fundamental policy of our Constitution On April 30, 2008, Spouses Bakunawa
settled amicably their dispute with Millan. The
Spouses tried to recover the P1M under Managers An order to debit the account of respondents was
Check but they were informed that the amount was never made. In fact, petitioner confirms that the
already subject of the escheat proceedings before Managers Check was never negotiated or presented
the RTC. for payment to its Ermita Branch, and that the
allocated fund is still held by the bank. As a result,
The RTC ordered the deposit of the the assigned fund is deemed to remain part of the
escheated balances with the Treasurer and credited account of Hi-Tri, which procured the Managers
in favor of the Republic. Respondents claim that Check. The doctrine that the deposit represented by
they were not able to participate in the trial, as they a managers check automatically passes to the payee
were not informed of the ongoing escheat is inapplicable, because the instrument although
proceedings. A motion for reconsideration was filed, accepted in advance remains undelivered. Hence,
but was subsequently denied. respondents should have been informed that the
deposit had been left inactive for more than 10
The CA reversed the RTC ruling, years, and that it may be subjected to escheat
pronouncing that the RTC Clerk of Court failed to proceedings if left unclaimed.
issue individual notices directed to all persons
claiming interest in the unclaimed balances. The CA
also held that the decision and order of the RTC
were void for want of jurisdiction. After a careful review of the RTC records, we find
that it is no longer necessary to remand the case for
hearing to determine whether the claim of
respondents was valid. There was no contention that
ISSUE: Whether or not the allocated funds may be they were the procurers of the Managers Check. It
escheated in favor of the Republic. is undisputed that there was no effective delivery of
the check, rendering the instrument incomplete. In
addition, we have already settled that respondents
retained ownership of the funds. As it is obvious
HELD: NO.
from their foregoing actions that they have not
abandoned their claim over the fund, we rule
Petitioner acknowledges that the Managers
that the allocated deposit, subject of the
Check was procured by respondents, and that the
Managers Check, should be excluded from the
amount to be paid for the check would be sourced
escheat proceedings. We reiterate our
from the deposit account of Hi-Tri. When Rosmil
pronouncement that the objective of escheat
did not accept the Managers Check offered by
proceedings is state forfeiture of unclaimed
respondents, the latter retained custody of the
balances. We further note that there is nothing in the
instrument instead of cancelling it. As the
records that would show that the OSG appealed the
Managers Check neither went to the hands of
assailed CA judgments. We take this failure to
Rosmil nor was it further negotiated to other
appeal as an indication of disinterest in pursuing the
persons, the instrument remained undelivered.
escheat proceedings in favor of the Republic.
Petitioner does not dispute the fact that respondents
retained custody of the instrument.

#10 Republic of the PH vs. CFI of Manila, GR #


L-30381, August 30, 1988
Since there was no delivery, presentment of
the check to the bank for payment did not occur.
Spec Pro Doctrine:
actions in the name of the People of the Philippines
in the Court of First Instance of the province where
FACTS: Pursuant to Unclaimed Balance Law (ACT
the bank is located, in which shall be joined as
No. 3936), private respondent forwarded to the
parties the bank and such creditors or depositors.
Treasurer of the Philippines separate statements
All or any member of such creditors or depositors or
under oath by their respective managing officers of
banks, may be included in one action.
all deposits and credits held by them in favor, or in
the names of such depositors or creditors known to
be dead, or who have not been heard from, or who
A "real party in interest" has been defined as the
have not made further deposits or withdrawals
party who would be benefitted or injured by the
during the preceding ten years or more. Upon
judgment of the suit or the party entitled to avail of
receipt of these sworn statements, the Treasurer of
the suit. There can be no doubt that private
the Philippines caused the same to be published in
respondent bank falls under this definition for the
two newspapers of general circulation. The
escheat of the dormant deposits in favor of the
Republic then instituted before the CFI of Manila a
government would necessarily deprive said bank of
complaint for escheat against private respondent.
the use of such deposits. It is in this sense that it
The lower court decided in favor of respondent.
stands to be "injured by the judgment of the suit;"
ISSUES: and it is for this reason that Section 3 of Act No.
3936 specifically provides that the bank shall be
(1) Whether or not Pres. Roxas Rural Bank is a real joined as a party in the action for escheat.
party in interest in the escheat proceedings.
(2) Whether or not Section 2(b), Rule 4 of the
Revised Rules of Court on venue, likewise, governs As to the second issue, suffice it to say that Section
escheat proceedings instituted by the Republic in 2(b) of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot
the Court of First Instance of Manila. govern escheat proceedings principally because said
section refers to personal actions. Escheat
HELD: (1) YES (2) NO proceedings are actions in rem which must be
The SC denied the petition and stated that Section 3 brought in the province or city where the rem in this
of Act No. 3936 provides that Whenever the case the dormant deposits, is located.
Attorney General shall be informed of such
unclaimed balances, he shall commence an action or

Você também pode gostar