Capablanca vs. Bas Case Digest G.R. No. 224144 June 28, 2017

Capablanca vs. Bas Case Digest 

G.R. No. 224144 ; June 28, 2017

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Declaration of heirship

Declaration of heirship must be made only in a special proceeding and not in an ordinary civil action for reconveyance of property

When Applicable: Adverse parties are putative heirs to a decedent's estate or parties to the special proceedings for an estate's settlement (Litam and Solivio case)

Why it is not applicable in this case: Petitioner does not claim any filiation with Pedro or seek to establish her right as his heir as against the respondents

- Hence determination of petitioners' status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners

b) No judicial declaration of heirship is necessary in order that an heir may assert his or her right to the property of the deceased.

Reason: This is upon the theory that the property of a deceased person, both real and personal, becomes the property of the heir by the mere fact of death of his predecessor in interest.

Remedial Law

a) Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court

"[ d]efenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived

FACTS: Pedro acquired a lot. He sold this to Faustina. After the death of Faustina, her heirs executed a notarized Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Absolute Sale of the subject lot and it was conveyed to Alejandra. Alejandra sold the land Deen, who in turn sold it to Atty. Deen. Upon Atty. Deen's death, an extra-judicial settlement of estate, which did not include subject lot, was executed by his heirs. Later they executed an Additional Extra­Judicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale, which sold the land to Norberto who took possession of and built a house on it. Norberto died without a will and was succeeded by Lolita.

Josefina, who represented the Heirs Pedro, filed a complaint for Clarification of Ownership of the subject lot against Lolita. Later, Lolita sought to register her portion in subject lot but was denied by the Register of Deeds, citing the need for a court order. Lolita then learned that TCT No. T-96676 had been partially cancelled and TCT Nos. T-100181, T-100182, T-100183, and T-100185 had been issued in the name of the Heirs of Pedro Bas, represented by Josefina. Lolita filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City for the cancellation of the titles.

RTC ruled in favor of Lolita. Heirs of Pedro appealed to the CA. The CA reversed the RTC Decision and dismissed the complaint. According to the CA, Lolita must first be declared as the sole heir to the estate of Norberto in a proper special proceeding

ISSUE/S:

1) WON petitioner should first be declared an heir of Norberto in order to proceed with this case.

2) WON it was proper for the CA to dismiss the case based on a ground that has not been raised.

HELD:

1) NO. The dispute in this case is not about the heirship of petitioner to Norberto but the validity of the sale of the property from Pedro to Faustina, from which followed a series of transfer transactions that culminated in the sale of the property to Norberto. For with Pedro's sale of the property, it follows that there would be no more ownership or right to property that would have been transmitted to his heirs.

Furthermore, no judicial declaration of heirship is necessary in order that an heir may assert his or her right to the property of the deceased. This is upon the theory that the property of a deceased person, both real and personal, becomes the property of the heir by the mere fact of death of his predecessor in interest. There is no legal precept or established rule which imposes the necessity of a previous legal declaration regarding their status as heirs to an intestate on those who, being of age and with legal capacity, consider themselves the legal heirs of a person, in order that they may maintain an action arising out of a right which belonged to their ancestor.

Moreover, the pronouncement in the Heirs of Yaptinchay that a declaration of heirship must be made only in a special proceeding and not in an ordinary civil action for reconveyance of property is not applicable in this case. Such ruling is only applicable if the adverse parties were putative heirs to a decedent's estate or parties to the special proceedings for an estate's settlement. Here, the main issue is the annulment of title to property, which ultimately hinges on the validity of the sale from Pedro to Faustina. Petitioner does not claim any filiation with Pedro or seek to establish her right as his heir as against the respondents. Rather, petitioner seeks to enforce her right over the property which has been allegedly violated by the fraudulent acts of respondents.

2) NO.  Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states, "defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. Here, respondents never raised their objection to petitioner's capacity to sue either as an affirmative defense or in a motion to dismiss." Thus, CA should not have dismissed the case based on such ground since it was deemed waived due to the fact that it was not pleaded in either a motion to dismiss or answer