 In all action for the reversion to the Government of
(This paper highlights the salient provisions under Rule 91)
RULE 91
ESCHEAT
NAME, DEFINED:
Q: What is the concept of escheat?
Escheat is the falling of a decedent’s estate into the general
property of the State on his death intestate without lawful
heirs, and is applied indifferently to all his rights to property
of whatever nature. (21 CJ 848)
It is a proceeding whereby the real and personal property of
a deceased person becomes the property of the State upon
his death without leaving a will or legal heirs. It is not an
ordinary action, but a special proceeding, and commenced
by petition and not by complaint. (Municipal Council of San
Pedro, Laguna, et al. v. Colegio de San Jose, Inc., et al., 65
Phil. 318)
Escheat is a proceeding, unlike that of succession or
assignment, whereby the State, by virtue of sovereignty,
steps in and claims the real and personal property of a
person who dies interstate leaving no heirs. In the absence
of a lawful owner, a property is claimed by the State to
forestall a open “invitation to self-service by the first timers.”
(Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 143483, January 31, 2002)
ELEMENTS:
a) Person owns a real/personal property
b) Person DIED:
a. INTESTATE; or
b. Even if with a WILL, the same was NOT
allowed to probate (as if he died intestate);
AND
c) The property were abandoned, left vacant, or
unclaimed
d) Decedent is WITHOUT HEIRS or PERSONS
ENTITLED to the property
When escheat does NOT apply:
 Where a land unconstitutionally acquired by an
alien was subsequently transferred to a Filipino
citizen as in the case of succession. (Republic v.
Register of Deeds of Roxas City, Elizabeth Lee
and Pacita Yu-Lee, G.R. No. 158230, July 16,
2008)
 The doctrine that the deposit represented by a
manager’s check AUTOMATICALLY PASSES to
the PAYEE is INAPPLICABLE, because the
instrument – although accepted in advance –
remains undelivered. Where there is non-delivery
of a manager’s check, it’s assigned fund is deemed
to remain part of the account which procured it.
When there is activity in the account that procured
the manager’s check, the same CANNOT be
ESCHEATED in favour of the government. (Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation v. Hi-Tri
Development Corporation and Luz R. Bakunawa,
G.R. No. 192413, June 13, 2012)
Q: Who is the real party-in-interest in all actions for the
reversion to the government of lands of the public
domain?
lands of the public domain or improvements
thereon, the Republic of the Philippines (RP) is the
real party-in-interest. The action shall be instituted
by the Solicitor General (SolGen) or the officer
acting in his stead, in behalf of the RP. (Luis B.
Manese, et al. v. Spouses Velasco, et al. G.R. No.
164024, January 29, 2009)
WHEN PROPER:
 GENERAL RULE: Escheat is proper when there is
NO WILL left by the decedent.
 EXCEPTION: (Instance where an escheat is
proper even if the decedent died intestate)
o Even if the decedent died intestate but the
WILL was NOT ALLOWED to probate, it is
AS IF he DIED INTESTATE. In such case,
if he has NO KNOWN HEIRS and there
are NO PERSONS ENTITLED to his
property, the same can still be escheated.
PROPER VENUE:
 A petition to declare as escheated a parcel of land
owned by a resident of the PH who died intestate
and without heirs or persons entitled to the
property is to be filed at the place where the
decedent last resided.
FIVE-YEAR TIME LIMITATION:
Q: How much time does a person entitled to the estate
of the deceased person escheated in favour of the
State have?
 A person entitled to the estate of the deceased
person escheated in favour of the government has
FIVE (5) YEARS from date of judgment to file a
claim.
EFFECT OF FILING/NOT FILING A CLAIM WITHIN THE
PRESCRIBED PERIOD:
 IF FILED
o Such person shall have possession of and
title to the same; or
o IF SOLD, the municipality or city shall be
accountable to CLAIMANT/PERSON
ENTITLED for the proceeds after
deducting the estate.
 IF NOT FILED
o A claim NOT MADE shall be BARRED
FOREVER. The right to claim the property
is lost and the escheat judgment can no
longer be nullified.
REASON FOR FIVE-YEAR PERIOD LIMIT:
 The five-year period is NOT a device capriciously
conjured by the State to defraud any claimant; on
the contrary, it is decidedly prescribed to
encourage would-be claimants to be punctilious in
asserting their claims, otherwise they may lose
them forever in a final judgment. (Republic v. CA,
G.R. 143483, January 31, 2002)
 In Republic v. CA (G.R. 143483, January 31,
2002), the escheat judgment was handed down by
the lower court as early as June 27, 1989, but it
 was only on January 28, 1997, more or less seven
years after, when private respondent decided to
contest the escheat judgment in the guise of a
petition for annulment of judgment before the Court
of Appeals. Obviously, private respondent’s
belated assertion of her right over the escheated
properties militates against recovery.
balances when there is substantial ground for a
belief that they have been abandoned, forgotten, or
without an owner. (RCBC v. Hi-Tri Development
Corp. and Luz R. Bakunawa, G.R. No. 192413,
June 13, 2012)


NOTE:

 Trial court CANNOT convert an escheat

proceeding into an ordinary special proceeding.
This is NOT allowed by the rules. The two actions
are entirely different from each other and the
requirements in vesting jurisdiction are likewise
different. In special proceedings, publication is
once a week for the three consecutive weeks
WHILE in escheat, once a week for six
consecutive weeks.

Q: Who has the personality to challenge the capacity of

a person to acquire or own lands based on non-
citizenship?

 Under Section 7, B.P. Blg. 185, the SolGen or his

representative shall institute escheat proceedings
against its violators. Although the law does NOT
categorically states that only the Government,
through the SolGen, may attack the title of an alien
transferee of land, it is nonetheless correct to hold
that only the Government, through the SolGen has
a personality to file a case challenging the capacity
of a person to acquire or to own land based on
non-citizenship. This limitation is based on the fact
that the violation is committed against the State,
not against any individual; and that in the event
that the transferee is adjudged to be NOT a Filipino
citizen, the affected property reverts to the State,
not to the previous owner or any other individual.
(Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her
husband, Eleuterio Mabanag v. The Register of
Deeds of Quezon City, et al. G.R. No. 153142,
March 29, 2010)

Q: Can a deposit or credit balance be the subject of

escheat proceedings?

 IT DEPENDS. Escheat proceedings refer to the

judicial process in which the State, by virtue of its
sovereignty, steps in and claims abandoned, left
vacant, or unclaimed property, without there being
an interested person having a legal claim thereto.
In the case of dormant accounts, the State inquire
into the status, custody, and ownership of the
unclaimed balance to determine whether the
inactivity was brought about by the fact of death or
absence of or abandonment by the depositor. If
after the proceedings, the property remains without
a lawful owner interested to claim it, the property
shall be reverted to the State “to forestall an open
invitation to self-service by the first comers.”
However, if interested parties have come forward
and lain claim to the property, the Court shall
determine whether the credit or deposit should
pass to the claimant or be forfeited in favour of the
State. Escheat is NOT a proceeding to penalize
depositors for failing to deposit to or withdraw from
their accounts. It is a proceeding whereby the State
compels the surrender to it of unclaimed deposit