Heirs of Yaptinchay vs. Del Rosario

A declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding, not in an ordinary civil action for reconveyance, and a party who has not been declared a legal heir in the proper proceeding is not a real party in interest whose complaint states a cause of action.

Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay were the registered owners-claimants of two parcels of land in Bancal, Carmona, Cavite — Lot No. 1131 (520,638 square meters) and Lot No. 1132 (96,235 square meters). Upon their death, the petitioners, comprising the Enciso siblings represented by Leticia Enciso-Gadingan as attorney-in-fact, claimed to be the legal heirs of the deceased couple. The dispute arose when the petitioners discovered that the properties had been titled in the name of Golden Bay Realty and Development Corporation, which subsequently sold portions thereof to various buyers.

Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of the late Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay, the owners-claimants of Lot No. 1131 with an area of 520,638 square meters and Lot No. 1132 with an area of 96,235 square meters, more or less, situated in Bancal, Carmona, Cavite. On March 17, 1994, petitioners executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the estate of the deceased couple.

On August 26, 1994, petitioners discovered that a portion, if not all, of the aforesaid properties had been titled in the name of respondent Golden Bay Realty and Development Corporation under Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 225254 and 225255. With this discovery, petitioners filed a complaint for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of TCT Nos. 493363, 493364, 493665, 493666, and 493367, and their derivatives, with alternative prayer for reconveyance of realty with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order with damages, docketed as Civil Case No. BCV-94-127 before Branch 21 of the RTC in Imus, Cavite.

Upon learning that Golden Bay had sold portions of the parcels of land in question, petitioners filed an Amended Complaint to implead new and additional defendants and to mention the TCTs to be annulled. The respondent court dismissed the Amended Complaint, but upon motion for reconsideration, the dismissal was reconsidered in an Order dated July 7, 1995, which allowed petitioners to file a Second Amended Complaint, which they promptly did.

On August 12, 1995, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, that plaintiffs did not have a right of action, that they had not established their status as heirs, that the land being claimed was different from that of the defendants, and that plaintiffs' claim was barred by laches. The RTC granted the motion in its Order dated October 25, 1995, holding that petitioners had not shown any proof — except bare allegations — that they had been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in the RTC's Order of February 23, 1996.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner contended that the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the issue of heirship should first be determined before trial of the case could proceed.
• Simultaneous Resolution of Heirship: Petitioner submitted that the respondent court should have proceeded with the trial and simultaneously resolved the issue of heirship in the same case.

• Failure to State a Cause of Action: Respondent argued that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
• Lack of Right of Action: Respondent maintained that plaintiffs did not have a right of action because they had not established their status as heirs.
• Undeclared Heirship: Respondent asserted that plaintiffs had not been declared legal heirs of the deceased couple.
• Different Property: Respondent contended that the land being claimed was different from that of the defendants.
• Barred by Laches: Respondent argued that plaintiffs' claim was barred by laches.

• Proper Remedy: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail an order of dismissal, or whether appeal is the appropriate recourse.
• Declaration of Heirship: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the declaration of heirship must first be made in a proper special proceeding before petitioners may maintain an action for reconveyance.

• Proper Remedy: No. An order of dismissal, whether right or wrong, is a final order subject to appeal, not certiorari; where appeal is available, certiorari will not lie.
• Declaration of Heirship: No. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion; the declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding and not in an independent civil action for reconveyance, as a party seeking to establish heirship is seeking to establish a status or right within the meaning of the Rules.

• Proper Remedy: The petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court was an improper recourse. An order of dismissal, be it right or wrong, is a final order which is subject to appeal and not a proper subject of certiorari. Where appeal is available as a remedy, certiorari will not lie. The Court relied on American Home Assurance Company vs. Court of Appeals and Ongsitco vs. Court of Appeals for this proposition.

• Declaration of Heirship: The RTC correctly dismissed the Second Amended Complaint because petitioners had not shown any proof that they had been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple, save for their bare allegations. The determination of who are the legal heirs must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. This principle was established in Litam, etc., et al. vs. Rivera, where the Court ruled that a declaration of heirship is improper in a civil action, being within the exclusive competence of the court in the special proceedings for settlement of the estate. The doctrine was reiterated in Solivio vs. Court of Appeals. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a 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, while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. Since petitioners were seeking the establishment of a status or right — namely, their heirship — such declaration can be made only in a special proceeding. Because the suit was not brought in the name of the real party in interest, a motion to dismiss was properly granted on the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action, pursuant to Travel Wide Associated Sales (Phils.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals.

• Declaration of Heirship in Special Proceedings — The declaration of who are the legal heirs of a deceased person must be made in a proper special proceeding for the settlement of the estate, not in an independent civil action such as one for reconveyance of property. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court, a special proceeding is defined as "a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact," whereas a 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." Because heirship involves the establishment of a status or right, it falls within the ambit of a special proceeding. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that petitioners, who had not been declared heirs in a special proceeding, were not real parties in interest and thus their complaint stated no cause of action.

• Certiorari Not a Substitute for Appeal — An order of dismissal, whether correct or erroneous, is a final order subject to appeal. Certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie where the remedy of appeal is available. The Court applied this doctrine to dismiss the petition outright as an improper recourse.

• Real Party in Interest — If a suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. The Court applied this to uphold the dismissal, since petitioners had not established their status as legal heirs and therefore were not real parties in interest.

• "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." — This passage, quoted by the Supreme Court from the RTC's order, articulates the controlling rule that heirship must be established in a special proceeding before a reconveyance action may be maintained.

• "The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as 'one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong' while a special proceeding is 'a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.'" — This passage states the ratio decidendi by grounding the distinction between civil action and special proceeding in the Rules of Court themselves, establishing why heirship cannot be declared in a reconveyance suit.

• "An order of dismissal, be it right or wrong, is a final order, which is subject to appeal and not a proper subject of certiorari. Where appeal is available as a remedy certiorari will not lie." — This passage states the procedural bar that independently justified dismissal of the petition, reinforcing that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal.

• Litam, etc., et al. vs. Rivera, 100 Phil. 364 — Controlling precedent. The Court held that a declaration of heirship is improper in a civil action and must be made in the special proceeding for settlement of the estate, where the issue of heirship will not ordinarily be in issue until the presentation of the project of partition. The Court applied this doctrine directly to the case.
• Solivio vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 119 — Followed precedent. The Court reiterated the Litam doctrine that declaration of heirship must be made in an administration proceeding and not in an independent civil action.
• Travel Wide Associated Sales (Phils.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 205 — Applied precedent. The Court relied on this case for the rule that if a suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action.
• American Home Assurance Company vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 343 — Cited for the proposition that certiorari is not a proper remedy where appeal is available.
• Ongsitco vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 703 — Cited for the same proposition that certiorari will not lie where appeal is available.

• Section 3, Rule 1, 1997 Revised Rules of Court — Defines a civil action as "one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong" and a special proceeding as "a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact." The Court applied this definitional distinction to conclude that the declaration of heirship, which involves the establishment of a status or right, can only be made in a special proceeding, not in a civil action for reconveyance.

Romero and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concurred. Vitug, J., was abroad on official business. Panganiban, J., was on leave.