c.
G.R. No. 155555. August 16, 2005 ISABEL P. PORTUGAL and JOSE DOUGLAS PORTUGAL JR., Petitioners, JR., Petitioners, vs. LEONILA PORTUGALBELT PORTUGALBE LTRAN, RAN, Respondent !a"ts# Jose Jose Portug Portugal al (Port (Portuga ugal, l, Sr.) Sr.) contr contract acted ed two two marriages. The first marriage is with Paz Lazo in !"# whom he had a daughter daughter named Leonila Leonila Perpetua Perpetua $leli $leli Portugal ($pril !%&), the herein respondent, and the second marriage is with 'sael de la Puerta in !" !",, who gave gave irt irth h to a o* o* name named d Jose Jose +ouglas Portugal, Jr. (Sept. !"!), the petitioners herein. * virtue of a +eed of -tra/Judicial Partition and 0aiver of Rights eecuted * Portugal Sr. and his " silings, over the estate of their father, a parcel of land n 1aloocan was issued a T1T in the name of “Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C. Lazo” . Lazo” . Paz died in !", while Portugal Sr. died intestate in !%. 'n ! !,, Leon Leonil ila a eec eecut uted ed an “Affida “Affidavit vit of Adjudication Adjudication by ole !eir of "state of #eceased Person” , ad2udi ad2udicat cating ing to hersel herselff the 1aloocan parcel of land, and was suse3uentl* regist registere ered d (!) (!) in her name “Leonila Portugal Beltran, married to Merardo M. Beltran, Jr.” 'n !!4, 'sael and Portugal, Jr. (petitioners) filed a compla complaint int agains againstt Leonil Leonila a for cancel cancellat lation ion of $ffidavit of $d2udication $d2udication and T1T issued in her name name,, alle allegi ging ng that that Leon Leonil ila a is not not rela relate ted d whatsoever to the deceased Portugal, Sr., hence, not entitled to inherit the 1aloocan parcel of land, and and acco accorrding dingll* pra* pra*ed ed that that sai said T1T e canc cancel elle led d and and a new new one one e issu issued ed in thei their r (petitioner5s) name. $ Pre/Trial 6rder was issued, citing the following issues to e resolved, to wit7
a. 0hich 0hich of the the two two (#) marr marriag iages es contra contracte cted d * the deceased Jose 8. Portugal Sr., Sr., is valid9
0hethe 0hetherr or not not T1T T1T :o. %!; %!; was was issue issued d in due due cour course se and and can can stil stilll e cont contes este ted d * plaintiffs.
d. 0heth 0hether er or not not plai plaint ntif iffs fs are entit entitle led d to their their claims claims under the complaint complaint.. (
1iti 1iting ng the case of !eirs !eirs of $uido and %sabel %sabel &a'tinc(ay , the Supreme 1ourt in this case ruled that that the estali estalishm shment ent of a status status,, a right, right, or a part partic icul ular ar fact fact is '()(d%(d '()(d%(d t&'oug& t&'oug& a s*("%a+ s*("%a+ *'o"((d%ng, not an o'd%na' "%-%+ a"t%on. Thus, the court, court, not eing eing a proat proate e court, court, %s $%t&out u'%sd%"t%on u'%sd%"t%on to 'u+( on *+a%nt%//s *+a%nt%//s "aus( to (sta+%s& t&(%' status and '%g&t &('(%n.
6n appeal to 1$, the petitioners cite the case of Cari Carino no vs. vs. Cari Carino no.. 'n this case, the S1 ratioc ratiocina inates tes that the court ma* pass upon upon the validit* of marriage even after the death of the parti parties es theret thereto, o, and even in a suit suit not directl* directl* instituted to 3uestion the validit* of said marriage, so long as it is (ss(nt%a+ to t&( t&( d(t(')%nat%on d(t(')%nat%on o/ t&( "as(.
>owever, the 1$ found Carino to Carino to e inapplicale. The appellate court held that in Carino case, the main issue was the -a+%d%t of the two marriages, whereas in the instant case, the main issue is the annu+)(n annu+)(ntt o/ t%t+( t%t+( to *'o*('t *'o*('t.. Thus, the 1$ affirmed the T15s dismissal of the case.
. 0hich of the the plaintif plaintifff . . . Jose Jose Portugal Portugal Jr. Jr. and defe defend ndan antt Leon Leonil ila a P. elt eltra ran n is the the lega legall heir of the deceased Jose 8. Portugal Sr.9 >ence, the present petition.
S*("%a+ P'o"((d%ngs
D%g(sts Ru+( 32 4 3
1
(-%d(n"( (/o'( t&( t'%a+ "ou't $&%"& assu)(d u'%sd%"t%on o-(' t&( "as( u*on t&( %ssu(s %t d(/%n(d du'%ng *'(t'%a+.
Issu(# Whether or not the petitioners have to institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs before the can pursue the case for annulment of respondent!s "ffidavit of "d#udication and of the $C$ issued in her name.
Ru+%ng# NO. 'n the case at ar, respondent, elieving rightl* or wrongl* that she was the sole heir to Portugal5s estate, eecuted on ?eruar* %, ! the 3uestioned $ffidavit of $d2udication under the second sentence of Rule @", Section of the Revised Rules of 1ourt. Sa%d 'u+( %s an ("(*t%on to t&( g(n('a+ 'u+( that when a person dies leaving a propert*, it should e 2udiciall* administered and the competent court should appoint a 3ualified administrator, in the order estalished in Sec. 4, Rule @ in case the deceased left no will, or in case he did, he failed to name an eecutor therein.
'n fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there eing no compelling reason to still su2ect Portugal5s estate to administration proceedings s%n"( a d(t(')%nat%on o/ *(t%t%on('s status as &(%'s "ou+d ( a"&%(-(d %n t&( "%-%+ "as( /%+(d *(t%t%on('s, t&( t'%a+ "ou't s&ou+d *'o"((d to (-a+uat( t&( ( -%d(n"( *'(s(nt(d t&( *a't%(s du'%ng t&( t'%a+ and '(nd(' a d("%s%on t&('(on u*on t&( %ssu(s %t d(/%n(d du'%ng *'(t'%a+, which ear repeating, to wit7
. 0hich of the two (#) marriages contracted * the deceased Jose 8. Portugal, is validA #. 0hich of the plaintiff, Jose Portugal Jr. and defendant Leonila P. eltran is the legal heir of the deceased Jose 8. Portugal (Sr.)A ;. 0hether or not T1T :o. %!; was issued in due course and can still e contested * plaintiffsA
Petitioners claim, however, to e the eclusive heirs of Portugal. $ proate or intestate court, no dout, has 2urisdiction to declare who are the heirs of a deceased.
't appearing, however, that %n t&( *'(s(nt "as( t&( on+ *'o*('t o/ t&( %nt(stat( (stat( o/ Po'tuga+ %s t&( 7a+oo"an *a'"(+ o/ +and, to st%++ su("t %t, und(' t&( "%'"u)stan"(s o/ t&( "as(, to a s*("%a+ *'o"((d%ng $&%"& "ou+d ( +ong, &(n"(, not (*(d%t%ous, ust to (sta+%s& t&( status o/ *(t%t%on('s as &(%'s %s not on+ %)*'a"t%"a+8 %t %s u'd(nso)( to t&( (stat( $%t& t&( "osts and (*(ns(s o/ an ad)%n%st'at%on *'o"((d%ng. And %t %s su*('/+uous %n +%g&t o/ t&( /a"t t&at t&( *a't%(s to t&( "%-%+ "as( su("t o/ t&( *'(s(nt "as(, "ou+d and &ad a+'(ad %n /a"t *'(s(nt(d
S*("%a+ P'o"((d%ngs
". 0hether or not plaintiffs are entitled to their claim under the complaint.
9:ERE!ORE, the petition is here* BR$:T-+. The assailed Septemer #", #&&# +ecision of the 1ourt of $ppeals is here* S-T $S'+-.
Let the records of the case e R-C$:+-+ to the trial court, ranch #" of the Regional Trial 1ourt of 1aloocan 1it*, for it to evaluate the evidence presented * the parties and render a decision on the aove/enumerated issues defined during the pre/trial. :o costs. S6 6R+-R-+.
D%g(sts Ru+( 32 4 3
2
S*("%a+ P'o"((d%ngs
D%g(sts Ru+( 32 4 3
