Republic of the
FIRST DIVISION
FAUSTINO REYES,
ESPERIDION G.R. No. 162956
REYES, JULIETA C. RIVERA, and
EUTIQUIO DICO, JR.,
Petitioners,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
- versus
- CARPIO,
*AZCUNA, and
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, JJ.
PETER B. ENRIQUEZ, for himself
and Attorney-in-Fact of his daughter Promulgated:
DEBORAH ANN C. ENRIQUEZ, and
SPS. DIONISIO FERNANDEZ and
CATALINA FERNANDEZ,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O
N
PUNO, C.J.:
This case
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 29, 2003
in CA G.R. CV No. 68147, entitled “Peter B. Enriquez, et al. v. Faustino Reyes,
et al., reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City,
Branch XI dated June 29, 2000, which dismissed the complaint filed by the
respondents herein.[1]
The subject matter of the
present case is a parcel of land known as Lot No. 1851 Flr-133 with an
aggregate area of 2,017 square meters located in Talisay,
According to petitioners
Faustino Reyes, Esperidion Reyes, Julieta C. Rivera, and Eutiquio Dico, Jr.,
they are the lawful heirs of Dionisia Reyes who co-owned the subject parcel of
land with Anacleto Cabrera as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. RT-3551 (T-8070). On April 17, 1996,
petitioners executed an Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of the Estate of
Dionisia Reyes (the Extra Judicial Settlement) involving a portion of the
subject parcel of land. On
Respondents Peter B.
Enriquez (Peter) for himself and on behalf of his minor daughter Deborah Ann C.
Enriquez (Deborah Ann), also known as Dina Abdullah Enriquez Alsagoff, on the
other hand, alleges that their predecessor-in-interest Anacleto Cabrera and his
wife Patricia Seguera Cabrera (collectively the Spouses Cabrera) owned ½ pro-indiviso
share in the subject parcel of land or 1051 sq. m. They further allege that Spouses Cabrera were
survived by two daughters – Graciana, who died single and without issue, and
Etta, the wife of respondent Peter and mother of respondent Deborah Ann – who
succeeded their parents’ rights and took possession of the 1051 sq. m. of the subject parcel of
land. During her lifetime, Graciana sold
her share over the land to Etta. Thus,
making the latter the sole owner of the one-half share of the subject parcel of
land. Subsequently, Etta died and the
property passed on to petitioners Peter and Deborah Ann by virtue of an
Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate. On P200,000.00
to Spouses Dionisio and Catalina Fernandez (Spouses Fernandez), also their
co-respondents in the case at bar. After
the sale, Spouses Fernandez took possession of the said area in the subject
parcel of land.[4]
When Spouses Fernandez,
tried to register their share in the subject land, they discovered that certain
documents prevent them from doing so:
(1) Affidavit by Anacleto Cabrera dated March 16, 1957 stating that his
share in Lot No. 1851, the subject property, is approximately 369 sq. m.; (2)
Affidavit by Dionisia Reyes dated July 13, 1929 stating that Anacleto only
owned ¼ of Lot No. 1851, while 302.55 sq.
m. belongs to Dionisia and the rest of the property is co-owned by Nicolasa
Bacalso, Juan Reyes, Florentino Reyes and Maximiano Dico; (3) Extra-Judicial
Settlement with Sale of the Estate of Dionisia Reyes dated April 17, 1996; (4)
certificates of title in the name of the herein petitioners; and (5) Deed of
Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of Sale dated March 21, 1997
executed by the alleged heirs of Dionisia Reyes and Anacleto Cabrera. Alleging
that the foregoing documents are fraudulent and fictitious, the respondents
filed a complaint for annulment or nullification of the aforementioned
documents and for damages. [5] They likewise prayed for the “repartition and
resubdivision” of the subject property.[6]
The RTC, upon motion of
the herein petitioners, dismissed the case on the ground that the
respondents-plaintiffs were actually seeking first and foremost to be declared
heirs of Anacleto Cabrera since they can not demand the partition of the real
property without first being declared as legal heirs and such may not be done
in an ordinary civil action, as in this case, but through a special proceeding
specifically instituted for the purpose.[7]
On appeal, the Court of
Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC and directed the trial court to proceed with the
hearing of the case.[8] The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
herein petitioners was similarly denied.[9]
Hence this petition.
The primary issue in this
case is whether or not the respondents have to institute a special proceeding
to determine their status as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera before they can file an
ordinary civil action to nullify the affidavits of Anacleto Cabrera and
Dionisia Reyes, the Extra-Judicial Settlement with the Sale of Estate of
Dionisia Reyes, and the Deed of Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of
Sale executed by the heirs of Dionisia Reyes and the heirs of Anacleto Cabrera,
as well as to cancel the new transfer certificates of title issued by virtue of
the above-questioned documents.
We answer in the
affirmative.
An ordinary civil action
is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.[10] A special proceeding, on the other hand, is a
remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular
fact.[11]
The Rules of Court provide
that only a real party in interest is allowed to prosecute and defend an action
in court.[12] A real party in interest is the one who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the one
entitled to the avails thereof.[13] Such interest, to be considered a real
interest, must be one which is present and substantial, as distinguished from a
mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.[14]
A plaintiff is a real party in interest
when he is the one who has a legal right to enforce or protect, while a
defendant is a real party in interest when he is the one who has a correlative
legal obligation to redress a wrong done to the plaintiff by reason of the
defendant’s act or omission which had violated the legal right of the former.[15] The purpose of the rule is to protect persons
against undue and unnecessary litigation.[16] It likewise ensures that the court will have
the benefit of having before it the real adverse parties in the consideration
of a case.[17]
Thus, a plaintiff’s right to institute an ordinary civil action should be based
on his own right to the relief sought.
In cases wherein alleged
heirs of a decedent in whose name a property was registered sue to recover the
said property through the institution of an ordinary civil action, such as a
complaint for reconveyance and partition,[18]
or nullification of transfer certificate of titles and other deeds or documents
related thereto,[19]
this Court has consistently ruled that a declaration of heirship is improper in
an ordinary civil action since the matter is “within the exclusive competence
of the court in a special proceeding.” [20] In the recent case of Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran,[21] the Court had the occasion to clarify its
ruling on the issue at hand, to wit:
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.[22]
In the instant case, while the
complaint was denominated as an action for the “Declaration of Non-Existency[sic],
Nullity of Deeds, and Cancellation of Certificates of Title, etc.,” a review of
the allegations therein reveals that the right being asserted by the
respondents are their right as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera who they claim
co-owned one-half of the subject property and not merely one-fourth as stated
in the documents the respondents sought to annul. As correctly pointed out by the trial
court, the ruling in the case of Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay v. Hon. Roy del
Rosario[23]
is applicable in the case at bar. In the
said case, the petitioners therein, claiming to be the legal heirs of the late
Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay filed for annulment of the transfer certificates of
title issued in the name of Golden Bay Realty Corporation on the ground that
the subject properties rightfully belong to the petitioners’ predecessor and by
virtue of succession have passed on to them.
In affirming the trial court therein, this Court ruled:
...(T)he
plaintiffs who claimed to be the legal heirs of the said Guido and Isabel
Yaptinchay have not shown any proof or even a semblance of it — except the
allegations that they are the legal heirs of the aforementioned Yaptinchays —
that they have been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple. Now, the
determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in
the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for
reconveyance of property. This must take precedence over the action for
reconveyance.[24]
In the same
manner, the respondents herein, except for their allegations, have yet to
substantiate their claim as the legal heirs of Anacleto Cabrera who are, thus,
entitled to the subject property. Neither is there anything in the records of
this case which would show that a special proceeding to have themselves
declared as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera had been instituted. As such, the trial court correctly dismissed
the case for there is a lack of cause of action when a case is instituted by
parties who are not real parties in interest.
While a declaration of heirship was not prayed for in the complaint, it
is clear from the allegations therein that the right the respondents sought to
protect or enforce is that of an heir of one of the registered co-owners of the
property prior to the issuance of the new transfer certificates of title that
they seek to cancel. Thus, there is a
need to establish their status as such heirs in the proper forum.
Furthermore, in
Portugal,[25]
the Court held that it would be superfluous to still subject the estate to
administration proceedings since a determination of the parties' status as
heirs could be achieved in the ordinary civil case filed because it appeared
from the records of the case that the only property left by the decedent was
the subject matter of the case and that the parties have already presented
evidence to establish their right as heirs of the decedent. In the present case, however, nothing in the
records of this case shows that the only property left by the deceased Anacleto
Cabrera is the subject lot, and neither had respondents Peter and Deborah Ann
presented any evidence to establish their rights as heirs, considering
especially that it appears that there are other heirs of Anacleto Cabrera who
are not parties in this case that had signed one of the questioned
documents. Hence, under the
circumstances in this case, this Court finds that a determination of the rights
of respondents Peter and Deborah Ann as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera in a special
proceeding is necessary.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby REVERSED and the decision of
the Regional Trial Court dated
No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
(on official leave)
RENATO C. CORONA ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T
I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice