April 10, 2008
Ponente: Puno, C.J.
FACTS:
·
The subject matter of the present case is a
parcel of land located in Talisay, Cebu.
CLAIM OF PETITIONERS
·
Faustino Reyes, Esperidion Reyes, Julieta C.
Rivera, and Eutiquio Dico, Jr. (herein petitioners) claim that they are the
lawful heirs of Dionisia Reyes who co-owned the subject parcel of land with
Anacleto Cabrera.
·
In 1996, herein petitioners executed an
Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of the Estate of Dionisia Reyes involving a
portion of the subject parcel of land. In 1997, the heirs of Anacleto Cabrera
executed a Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of Sale over the same
property.
·
Consequently, the original TCT over the
subject property was cancelled and new TCTs were issued.
CLAIM OF RESPONDENTS
·
The cancellation of the original TCT was
challenged by Peter Enriquez and his minor daughter Deborah (herein
respondents). They claim that their predecessor-in-interest Anacleto Cabrera
and his wife Patricia Seguera Cabrera (spouses Cabrera) owned pro-indiviso
share in the subject parcel of land.
·
They 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 subject parcel of
land.
·
During her lifetime, Graciana sold her share
over the land to Etta, 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 Peter and Deborah Ann by virtue of an Extra-Judicial Settlement of
Estate. In 1999, Peter and Deborah Ann sold part of the property to spouses
Dionisio and Catalina Fernandez (spouses Fernandez), also their co-respondents
in the case at bar.
·
Following the sale, the spouses Fernandez were
unable to have the property registered under their names on account of certain
documents on record, viz: (1)
Affidavit by Anacleto Cabrera dated March 16, 1957 stating that his share
in the subject property is approximately
369 sq. m.; (2) Affidavit by Dionisia Reyes dated July 13, 1929 stating that
Anacleto only owned 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.
·
Essentially, these documents show that
Anacleto only owned 1/4 of the subject property and not 1/2 as per the
respondents' claim.
·
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. They likewise prayed for the repartition and
resubdivision of the subject property.
·
RTC:
Dismissed the case on the ground that herein respondents were actually seeking
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 may
not be done in an ordinary civil action, as in this case, but through a special
proceeding specifically instituted for the purpose.
·
CA: Reversed
the RTC and directed the trial court to proceed with the hearing of the case.
·
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING: CA
reversed. RTC ruling reinstated.
·
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. 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.
·
Although the present complaint was denominated
as an action for the Declaration of Non-Existence, 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. Thus, there is first a need to establish their
status as such heirs in the proper forum.
·
In this regard, the respondents have yet to
substantiate their claim as the legal heirs of Anacleto Cabrera, which would
entitle them 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.
·
Additionally, nothing in the records 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.
·
As such, the RTC 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. 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 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, or nullification of transfer certificate of titles
and other deeds or documents related thereto, the SC 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.