SECOND DIVISION
statute of limitations, "eing filed "e%ond the *+%r limitation provided under Sec. #ule - #/C.
[G.R. No. 143483. January 31, 2002.] REPUBIC O! "#E P#IIPPINES r$%r$&$n'$( )y '*$ REGIS"ER O! DEEDS O! P+S+ CI",Petitioner CI", Petitioner , -. COUR" O! +PPE+S SPECI+ !OR/ER 3RD DIVISION +ND +/+D+ #. SO+NO, a&&&'$( )y *$r *u&)an( RO/EO SO+NO, Respondents Respondents.. DECISION
The CA ruled in favor of Solano ruling that she is not claiming an%thing from the estate !ithin the purvie! of Sec - Sec , "ut rather she is claiming o!nership over the disputed properties and reconve%ance thereof. As such, her claim !as properl% filed !ithin the 0+%r prescriptive period under the Civil Code, not under the #/C. Hence, this appeal. ISS12: (1) Whether Solano is barred by prescription. YES!
FACTS: In recognition of Amada Solano’s faithful and dedicated service as her personal domestic helper, the late Ms. Hanins donated t!o parcels of land to Solano. The deeds of donation evidencing the a"ove ho!ever !ere alleged to "e missing and no!here to "e found. The #epu"lic then initiated escheat proceedings concerning the parcels of land in !hich Solano filed a motion to intervene. Said motion !as denied. Since it !as esta"lished that there !ere no known heirs and persons entitled to the properties of decedent Hankins , the lo!er court $&*$a'$( '*$ $&'a'$ of $&'a'$ of the decedent in favor of the #epu"lic of the $hilippines. S$-$n y$ar& a'$r '*$ na5'y o '*$ $&*$a' %ro$$(n6& , Solano claimed that she accidentall% found the deeds of donation and, filed a petition "efore the CA for the annulment of the lo!er court’s decision, alleging, among others, that: •
Having "een donated to her, the properties in dispute did not and could not form part of Ms. Hanins estate. Hence, could not "e validl% escheated
#epu"lic, in its ans!er, invoed &a' lac of (urisdiction over the nature of the action) and, that &"' the cause of action !as "arred "% the
In this (urisdiction, a claimant to an escheated propert% must file his claim 3!ithin five &*' %ears from the date of such (udgment, such person shall have possession of and title to the same, or if sold, the municipalit% or cit% shall "e accounta"le to him for the proceeds, after deducting the estate) )u' a 5a7 no' 7a($ &*a55 )$ )arr$( or$-$r.33 The *+%ear period is not a device capriciousl% con(ured "% or$-$r. the state to defraud an% claimant) on the contrar%, it is decidedl% prescri"ed to encourage !ould+"e claimants to "e punctilious in asserting their claims, other!ise the% ma% lose them forever in a final (udgment. 444 In the instant petition, the escheat (udgment !as handed do!n "% the lo!er court as earl% as 56 7une -8- "ut it !as onl% on 58 7anuar% --6, more or less seven &6' %ears after, !hen private respondent decided to contest the escheat (udgment n '*$ 6u&$ o a %$''on or annu57$n' o u(67$n' )$or$ '*$ Cour' o +%%$a5&. /"viousl%, private respondent’s "elated assertion of her right over the escheated properties militates against recover%. chanro"esvirtuaa!i"rar%
(2) Whether Solano is a claimant within Sec 91. YES!
&case of Municipal Council of San $edro, 9aguna v. Colegio de San 7ose, Inc' +ny %$r&on a55$6n6 'o *a-$ a (r$' r6*' or n'$r$&' n '*$ %ro%$r'y &ou6*' 'o )$ $&*$a'$( & 59$:&$ an n'$r$&'$( %ar'y an( 7ay a%%$ar an( o%%o&$ '*$ %$''on or
$&*$a'.
() Whether the alleedly donated properties may be "alidly escheated in #a"or o# the Rep$blic YES! In the mind of this Court the su"(ect properties !ere o!ned "% the decedent during the time that the escheat proceedings !ere "eing conducted and the lo!er court !as not divested of its (urisdiction to escheat them in favor of $asa% Cit% not!ithstanding an allegation that the% had "een previousl% donated. e recall that a motion for intervention !as earlier denied "% the escheat court for failure to sho! 3valid claim or right to the properties in ;uestion.3 - here a person comes into an escheat proceeding as a claimant, the "urden is on such intervenor to esta"lish his title to the propert% and his right to intervene. A fortiori, the certificates of title covering the su"(ect properties !ere in the name of the decedent indicating that no transfer
of o!nership involving the disputed properties !as ever made "% the deceased during her lifetime. In the a"sence therefore of an% clear and convincing proof sho!ing that the su"(ect lands had "een conve%ed "% Hanins to private respondent Solano, the same still remained, at least "efore the escheat, part of the estate of the decedent and the lo!er court !as right not to assume other!ise. The Court of Appeals therefore cannot perfunctoril% presuppose that the su"(ect properties !ere no longer part of the decedent’s estate at the time the lo!er court handed do!n its decision on the strength of a "elated allegation that the same had previousl% "een disposed of "% the o!ner. It is settled that courts decide onl% after a close scrutin% of ever% piece of evidence and anal%
