3.
PORTUGAL v PORTUGAL-BELTRAN
G.R. no. 155555, Aug. 16, 2005
Petitioners: Isabel Portugal and Jose Portugal
Respondents:Leonila Portugal-Beltran
DOCTRINE: Special Proceedings to determine the status as heirs need not
be first instituted if the same can be determined in the civil case filed as such
would only be burdensome on the estate of the decedent.
FACTS:
● Isabel de la Puerta-Portugal and her son Jose Portugal Jr. assailed
the September 24, 2002 decision of the CA which affirmed the RTC
decision that dismissed their complaint for annulment of title for
failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.
● On November 25, 1942, Jose Portugal married Paz Lazo and
subsequently married Isabel de la Puerta. Paz gave birth to Leonila
in 1950, while Isabel gave birth to Jose in 1949.
● In 1968, Portugal and his 4 siblings executed a Deed of Extra-
Judicial Partition and Waiver of Rights over the estate of their father
Mariano, who died intestate. They waived their rights and interests
over a 155 sqm parcel of land in Caloocan in Portugal’s favor.
● RD of Caloocan issued TCT covering the Caloocan parcel of land in
the name of Jose Portugal, married to Paz Lazo.
● Paz died and Portugal died intestate. Leonila executed an Affidavit of
Adjudication by sole heir of estate of deceased person, adjudicating
to herself the Caloocan land, thus a new TCT was issued in her
name.
● Isabel and Jose, hearing of the death of the older Portugal and the
transfer of title to Leonila, filed a complaint for annulment of Affidavit
of Adjudication and the TCT. They alleged that Leonila is not related
to the deceased Portugal so she is not entitled to inherit the
Caloocan land.
● TC & CA → dismissed the case for lack of cause of action on the
ground that Isabel and Jose’s status as putative heirs had not been
established and for lack of jurisdiction, without resolving the issues
defined in the pre-trial (w/n marriages were valid, which is the legal
heir, etc)
○ Heirs of Yaptinchay v Del Rosario: the establishment of a
status, right or particular fact is remedied through a special
proceeding and not an ordinary civil action so their status not
having been established, the complaint failed to state a
cause of action
○ Cario case (tale of 2 Susans) was inapplicable as the award
of death benefits were only incidental to the question of the
validity of the two marriages, whereas the case at bar mainly
dealt with the annulment of title to property.
● Isabel and Jose argued that the CA misapplied Yaptinchay and that
Cario allows courts to pass on the determination of heirship and
legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child so long as it is necessary to the
determination of the case
ISSUE: W/N Isabel and Jose have to institute a special proceeding to
determine their status as heirs before they can pursue a case for annulment
of the Affidavit of Adjudication and TCT -- NO
HELD: In the case of Yaptinchay, the alleged legal heirs of Yaptinchay have
not shown any proof except their bare allegations that they have been
declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple, so this determination of who
the legal heirs are must be made in the proper special proceeding. In the
case of Litam v Rivera, the declaration of heirship can be made only in a
special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners are seeking the
establishment of a status or right. In Solivio, the court held that it should not
interfere with estate proceedings pending in a co-equal court. In the case of
Guilas, the better practice for a heir who has not received his share is to
demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate or
administration proceedings, or for re-opening of the probate or administrative
proceedings if it had already been closed, and not through an independent
action, which would be tried by another court or Judge which may thus
reverse a decision or order of the probate or] intestate court already final and
executed and re-shuffle properties long ago distributed and disposed of.
The common doctrine in Litam, Solivio and Guilas in which the adverse
parties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to the special
proceedings for its settlement is that if the special proceedings are pending
or if there 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, heirship should be raised and settled in said special
proceedings. Where special proceedings had been instituted but had been
finally closed and terminated, however, or if a putative heir has lost the right
to have himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and he can no
longer ask for its re-opening, then an ordinary civil action can be filed for his
declaration as heir in order to bring about the annulment of the partition or
distribution or adjudication of a property or properties belonging to the estate
of the deceased.

In the case at bar, it is impractical to still subject the only property of the
deceased to special proceedings to establish the status of Isabel and Jose. It
is burdensome to the estate with costs and expenses of an administration
proceeding, and superfluous as the parties could present evidence before
the TC which assumed jurisdiction over the case. As such, there is no
compelling reason to still subject the Portugal’s estate to administration
proceedings since a determination of petitioners’ status as heirs could be
achieved in the civil case they filed. Thus, the TC should proceed to evaluate
the evidence presented by the parties and render a decision on the issues
defined in pre-trial.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed

September 24, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE.
Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the trial court, Branch
124 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, for it to evaluate the
evidence presented by the parties and render a decision on the above-
enumerated issues defined during the pre-trial.