ISABEL P. PORTUGAL and JOSE DOUGLAS PORTUGAL JR. v.

LEONILA PORTUGAL-BELTRAN
Jose Portugal married Paz Lazo. Subsequently Portugal married petitione
r Isabel de la Puerta and she gave birth to Jose Douglas Portugal Jr., her co-pe
titioner. Meanwhile, Lazo gave birth to respondent Leonila Perpetua Aleli Portug
al.
Portugal and his 4 siblings executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition
and Waiver of Rights over the estate of their father, Mariano Portugal, who die
d intestate. In the deed, Portugal s siblings waived their rights, interests, and
participation over a parcel of land in his favor.
Lazo died. Portugal also died intestate. Having such situation, Portugal-Bel
tran executed an Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Per
son adjudicating to herself the parcel of land. The Registry of Deeds then issued
the title in her name.
Puerta and Portugal Jr. filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ca
loocan City a complaint against Portugal-Beltran for annulment of the Affidavit
of Adjudication alleging that she is not related whatsoever to the deceased Port
ugal, hence, not entitled to inherit the parcel of land. But such was dismissed
by the RTC for lack of cause of action on the ground that Puerta and Portugal Jr
. s status amd right as putative heirs had not been established before a probate c
ourt, and lack of jurisdiction over the case.
Puerta and Portugal Jr. thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirme
d the RTC s dismissal of the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Puerta and Portugal Jr. have to institute a special proceeding to
determine their status as heirs before they can pursue the case for annulment o
f Portugal-Beltran s Affidavit of Adjudication and of the title issued in her name
HELD:
The common doctrine in Litam, Solivio and Guilas in which the adverse parties ar
e putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to the special proceedin
gs for its settlement is that if the special proceedings are pending, or if ther
e 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, heirshi
p should be raised and settled in said special proceedings.
It appearing, however, that in the present case the only property of the intesta
te estate of Portugal is the parcel of land, to still subject it, under the circ
umstances of the case, to a special proceeding which could be long, hence, not e
xpeditious, just to establish the status of Puerta and Portugal Jr. 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 tha
t the parties to the civil case-subject of the present case, could and had alrea
dy 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 de
termination of Puerta and Portugal Jr. s status as heirs could be achieved in the
civil case filed by Puerta and Portugal Jr., the trial court should proceed to e
valuate the evidence presented by the parties during the trial and render a deci
sion thereon upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.