Heirs of Ypon vs. Ricaforte Case Digest G.R. No. 198680 July 8, 2013

Heirs of Ypon vs. Ricaforte Case Digest 

G.R. No. 198680 ; July 8, 2013

DOCTRINE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Determination of who are the decedent’s lawful heirs must be made in the proper special proceeding for such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and/or possession

b) Cause of action

Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. It is well-settled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. In this relation, a complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for. Accordingly, if the allegations furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed, regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants.

c) Civil Action vs Special Proceeding

*Civil action - 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 (Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court)

*Special proceeding - a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. (Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court)

d) Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

Direct recourse to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court via Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is allowed if it raises a pure question of law.

FACTS: The Ypons filed a complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance with Damages (subject complaint) against respondent Ricaforte a.k.a. "Gaudioso E. Ypon" (Gaudioso). In their complaint, they alleged that Magdaleno died intestate and childless leaving certain lots. Claiming to be the sole heir of Magdaleno, Gaudioso executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and caused the cancellation of the aforementioned certificates of title, leading to their subsequent transfer in his name to the prejudice of petitioners who are Magdaleno’s collateral relatives and successors-in-interest.

In his Answer, Gaudioso alleged that he is the lawful son of Magdaleno as evidenced by: (a) his certificate of Live Birth; (b) two (2) letters from Polytechnic School; and (c) a certified true copy of his passport. Further, by way of affirmative defense, he claimed that: (a) petitioners have no cause of action against him; (b) the complaint fails to state a cause of action; and (c) the case is not prosecuted by the real parties-in-interest, as there is no showing that the petitioners have been judicially declared as Magdaleno’s lawful heirs.

RTC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. It observed that while the plaintiffs therein had established their relationship with Magdaleno in a previous special proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration, this did not mean that they could already be considered as the decedent’s compulsory heirs Quite the contrary, Gaudioso satisfactorily established the fact that he is Magdaleno’s son – and hence, his compulsory heir – through the documentary evidence he submitted. The Court also denied their motion for reconsideration due to the counsel’s failure to state the date on which his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Certificate of Compliance was issued. Hence this instant petition which directly appealed to the Supreme Court since it only raises pure questions of law.

ISSUE/S: WON the RTC’s dismissal of the case on the ground that the subject complaint failed to state a cause of action was proper

HELD:  YES. Since the petitioners failed to establish their relationship with Magdaleno in a previous special proceeding for purposes of heirship.

The General Rule is that the determination of who are the decedent’s lawful heirs must be made in the proper special proceeding for such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and/or possession.

Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court provides that 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. It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right.

An exception to the general rule is for practicality, as when the parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment thereon, or when a special proceeding had been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened. 

In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or those of similar nature, appear to exist.