Case Digest: ISABEL P. PORTUGAL and JOSE DOUGLAS PORTUGAL JR. v. LEONILA PORTUGAL-BELTRAN

ISABEL P. PORTUGAL and JOSE DOUGLAS PORTUGAL JR. v. LEONILA PORTUGAL-BELTRAN

         Jose Portugal married Paz Lazo. Subsequently Portugal married petitioner Isabel de la Puerta and she gave birth to Jose Douglas Portugal Jr., her co-petitioner. Meanwhile, Lazo gave birth to respondent Leonila Perpetua Aleli Portugal.

          Portugal and his 4 siblings executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Waiver of Rights over the estate of their father, Mariano Portugal, who died intestate. In the deed, Portugal‘s siblings waived their rights, interests, and participation over a parcel of land in his favor.

    Lazo died. Portugal also died intestate. Having such situation, Portugal-Beltran executed an “Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person” adjudicating to herself the parcel of land. The Registry of Deeds then issued the title in her name.

       Puerta and Portugal Jr. filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City a complaint against Portugal-Beltran for annulment of the Affidavit of Adjudication alleging that she is not related whatsoever to the deceased Portugal, hence, not entitled to inherit the parcel of land. But such was dismissed by the RTC for lack of cause of action on the ground that Puerta and Portugal Jr.‘s status amd right as putative heirs had not been established before a probate court, and lack of jurisdiction over the case.
Puerta and Portugal Jr. thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the RTC‘s dismissal of the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Puerta and Portugal Jr. have to institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs before they can pursue the case for annulment of Portugal-Beltran‘s Affidavit of Adjudication and of the title issued in her name

HELD:

The common doctrine in Litam, Solivio and Guilas in which the adverse parties are putative heirs to the estate of a decedent or parties to the special proceedings for its settlement is that if the special proceedings are pending, or if there are no special proceedings filed but there is, under the circumstances of the case, a need to file one, then the determination of, among other issues, heirship should be raised and settled in said special proceedings.

It appearing, however, that in the present case the only property of the intestate estate of Portugal is the parcel of land, to still subject it, under the circumstances of the case, to a special proceeding which could be long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status of Puerta and Portugal Jr. as heirs is not only impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and expenses of an administration proceeding. And it is superfluous in light of the fact that the parties to the civil case-subject of the present case, could and had already in fact presented evidence before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.

In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compelling reason to still subject Portugal‘s estate to administration proceedings since a determination of Puerta and Portugal Jr.‘s status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by Puerta and Portugal Jr., the trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the trial and render a decision thereon upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.