Reyes vs. Enriquez

Alleged heirs of a decedent who have not been declared as such in a special proceeding are not real parties in interest and cannot maintain an ordinary civil action to recover property registered in the decedent's name, such as an action for reconveyance, partition, or nullification of transfer certificates of title and other deeds or documents related thereto, because the determination of heirship must be made in the proper special proceedings in court.

The case involves a parcel of land known as Lot No. 1851 Flr-133 with an aggregate area of 2,017 square meters located in Talisay, Cebu. Petitioners are the alleged 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). Respondents Peter B. Enriquez and his daughter Deborah Ann C. Enriquez claim to be heirs of Anacleto Cabrera through his daughter Etta, who was the wife of Peter and mother of Deborah Ann. The dispute centers on the proper forum for determining heirship when alleged heirs seek to annul documents and cancel titles over property previously registered in their predecessor's name.

Petitioners Faustino Reyes, Esperidion Reyes, Julieta C. Rivera, and Eutiquio Dico, Jr. claimed to be the lawful heirs of Dionisia Reyes, who co-owned the subject parcel of land with Anacleto Cabrera as evidenced by TCT No. RT-3551 (T-8070). On April 17, 1996, petitioners executed an Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of the Estate of Dionisia Reyes involving a portion of the subject parcel of land. On March 21, 1997, the petitioners and the known heirs of Anacleto Cabrera executed a Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of Sale over the same property. By virtue of these documents, TCT No. RT-35551 (T-8070) was cancelled and new TCTs were issued: TCT No. T-98576 in the name of Anacleto Cabrera covering Lot 1851-A; TCT No. T-98577 covering Lot 1851-B in the name of petitioner Eutiquio Dico, Jr.; TCT No. T-98578 covering Lot 1851-C in the name of petitioner Faustino Reyes; TCT No. T-98579 covering Lot 1851-D in the name of petitioner Esperidion Reyes; TCT No. T-98580 covering Lot 1851-E in the name of petitioner Julieta G. Rivera; TCT No. T-98581 covering Lot 1851-F in the name of Felipe Dico; and TCT No. T-98582 covering Lot 1851-G in the name of Archimedes C. Villaluz.

Respondents Peter B. Enriquez, for himself and on behalf of his minor daughter Deborah Ann C. Enriquez, also known as Dina Abdullah Enriquez Alsagoff, alleged that their predecessor-in-interest Anacleto Cabrera and his wife Patricia Seguera Cabrera owned a ½ pro-indiviso share in the subject parcel of land, or 1,051 square meters. They further alleged that the 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 1,051 square meters. During her lifetime, Graciana sold her share over the land to Etta, making the latter the sole owner of the one-half share. Subsequently, Etta died and the property passed to respondents Peter and Deborah Ann by virtue of an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate. On June 19, 1999, respondents Peter and Deborah Ann sold 200 square meters out of the 1,051 square meters for ₱200,000.00 to Spouses Dionisio and Catalina Fernandez, also co-respondents in the case. After the sale, the Spouses Fernandez took possession of the said area.

When the Spouses Fernandez tried to register their share in the subject land, they discovered that certain documents prevented them from doing so: (1) an Affidavit by Anacleto Cabrera dated March 16, 1957 stating that his share in Lot No. 1851 is approximately 369 square meters; (2) an Affidavit by Dionisia Reyes dated July 13, 1929 stating that Anacleto only owned ¼ of Lot No. 1851, while 302.55 square meters belongs to Dionisia and the rest of the property is co-owned by Nicolasa Bacalso, Juan Reyes, Florentino Reyes, and Maximiano Dico; (3) the Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale of the Estate of Dionisia Reyes dated April 17, 1996; (4) certificates of title in the name of the petitioners; and (5) the 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 were fraudulent and fictitious, the respondents filed a complaint for annulment or nullification of the aforementioned documents and for damages, and likewise prayed for the "repartition and resubdivision" of the subject property.

• Lack of Real Party in Interest: Petitioners argued that the respondents were actually seeking first and foremost to be declared heirs of Anacleto Cabrera, since they cannot demand the partition of the real property without first being declared as legal heirs, and such declaration may not be done in an ordinary civil action but through a special proceeding specifically instituted for the purpose.

• Fraudulent Documents: Respondents alleged that the documents preventing them from registering their share — the Affidavits of Anacleto Cabrera and Dionisia Reyes, the Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale, the certificates of title in the name of petitioners, and the Deed of Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of Sale — were fraudulent and fictitious, and filed a complaint for their annulment or nullification and for damages.
• Right to Partition: Respondents prayed for the "repartition and resubdivision" of the subject property, asserting their right as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera to the one-half share of the property.

• Declaration of Heirship in Special Proceeding: Whether 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.

• Declaration of Heirship in Special Proceeding: Yes. The respondents must first be declared as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera in a special proceeding before they can file an ordinary civil action, because the determination of heirship is "within the exclusive competence of the court in a special proceeding," and the respondents, not having been so declared, are not real parties in interest.

• Declaration of Heirship in Special Proceeding: The Court distinguished an ordinary civil action, which is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong, from a special proceeding, which is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. The Rules of Court provide that only a real party in interest is allowed to prosecute and defend an action in court — one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or one entitled to the avails thereof. Such interest must be present and substantial, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. The purpose of the rule is to protect persons against undue and unnecessary litigation and to ensure that the court will have the benefit of having before it the real adverse parties.

The Court applied the doctrine in Portugal vs. Portugal-Beltran, which clarified that 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 heirship should be raised and settled in said special proceedings. Where special proceedings had been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, or if a putative heir has lost the right to have himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and can no longer ask for its re-opening, then an ordinary civil action can be filed for his declaration as heir.

In the instant case, while the complaint was denominated as an action for the "Declaration of Non-Existency, Nullity of Deeds, and Cancellation of Certificates of Title, etc.," a review of the allegations revealed that the right being asserted by the respondents was their right as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera, who they claimed co-owned one-half of the subject property and not merely one-fourth as stated in the documents sought to be annulled. The Court found the ruling in Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay vs. Hon. Roy del Rosario applicable, wherein the Court ruled that plaintiffs who claimed to be legal heirs but had not shown proof that they had been declared as such must first have the determination of heirship made in the proper special proceedings, which must take precedence over the action for reconveyance.

The Court noted that the respondents, except for their allegations, had yet to substantiate their claim as the legal heirs of Anacleto Cabrera, and nothing in the records showed that a special proceeding to have themselves declared as heirs had been instituted. While a declaration of heirship was not prayed for in the complaint, it was clear from the allegations therein that the right the respondents sought to protect or enforce was 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 sought to cancel. Thus, there was a need to establish their status as such heirs in the proper forum.

The Court distinguished Portugal, where it was held superfluous to still subject the estate to administration proceedings because the only property left by the decedent was the subject matter of the case and the parties had already presented evidence to establish their right as heirs. In the present case, nothing in the records showed that the only property left by the deceased Anacleto Cabrera was the subject lot, and neither had respondents Peter and Deborah Ann presented any evidence to establish their rights as heirs, considering especially that there appeared to be other heirs of Anacleto Cabrera who were not parties in this case but had signed one of the questioned documents. Hence, a determination of the rights of respondents as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera in a special proceeding was necessary.

• Real Party in Interest — Only a real party in interest is allowed to prosecute and defend an action in court. A real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or one entitled to the avails thereof, and such interest must be present and substantial, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. The Court applied this rule to hold that the respondents, who had not been judicially declared as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera, lacked the legal standing to maintain the ordinary civil action for annulment of documents and cancellation of titles.

• Declaration of Heirship Must Be Made in Special Proceedings — The determination of who are the legal heirs of a deceased person must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property, partition, or nullification of transfer certificates of title. This must take precedence over the action for reconveyance. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the respondents' claim of heirship to Anacleto Cabrera's one-half share of the subject property must first be established in a special proceeding before they could prosecute the ordinary civil action.

• Exception to the Doctrine (Portugal Exception) — Where special proceedings had been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, or if a putative heir has lost the right to have himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and 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. The Court found this exception inapplicable because nothing in the records showed that the only property left by the deceased Anacleto Cabrera was the subject lot, and the respondents had not presented evidence to establish their rights as heirs.

• "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." — This passage from Portugal vs. Portugal-Beltran states the controlling doctrine on when heirship must be determined in special proceedings, which the Court applied to the present case.

• "…(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." — This passage from Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay vs. Hon. Roy del Rosario was quoted by the Court as the applicable ruling, emphasizing that heirship determination takes precedence over ordinary civil actions for property recovery.

• Portugal vs. Portugal-Beltran, G.R. No. 155555, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 184 — Controlling precedent that clarified the doctrine on when heirship should be determined in special proceedings versus ordinary civil actions; the Court applied its ruling but distinguished its facts from the present case.
• Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay vs. Hon. Roy del Rosario, G.R. No. 124320, March 2, 1999, 304 SCRA 18 — Followed; the Court applied its ruling that plaintiffs claiming to be legal heirs must first be declared as such in special proceedings before maintaining an ordinary suit for reconveyance.
• Litam, etc., et al. vs. Rivera, 100 Phil. 364 (1956) — Cited for the proposition that declaration of heirship is "within the exclusive competence of the court in a special proceeding."
• Solivio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990, 182 SCRA 119 (1990) — Cited as an example of a case where alleged heirs sued to recover property through an ordinary civil action such as reconveyance and partition.
• Ibonilla vs. Province of Cebu, G.R. No. 97463, June 26, 1992, citing Garcia vs. David, 67 Phil. 279 (1939) — Cited for the definition of real party in interest.
• Lee vs. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-60937, May 28, 1988, 161 SCRA 589 — Cited for the definition of real party in interest.
• Fajardo vs. Freedom to Build, Inc., 400 Phil. 1272 (2000) — Cited for the purpose of the real party in interest rule.

• Section 1(a), Rule 1, Rules of Court — Defines an ordinary 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; the Court used this definition to distinguish ordinary civil actions from special proceedings.
• Section 1(c), Rule 1, Rules of Court — Defines 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 to hold that the determination of heirship is a matter for special proceedings.
• Section 2, Rule 3, Rules of Court — Provides that only a real party in interest is allowed to prosecute and defend an action in court; the Court applied this to hold that the respondents, not having been declared as heirs, were not real parties in interest.

• Carpio, J.
• Corona, J. (on official leave)
• Azcuna, J.
• Leonardo-De Castro, J.