View full case

LOLITA BAS CAPABLANCA v. HEIRS OF PEDRO BAS

FACTS:

Lot 2535 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Land's Estate, located in Biasong, Dumlog, Talisay, Cebu, with an area of 6,120 square meters, was acquired by Andres Bas and Pedro Bas who were issued Patent No. 1724 in their names. Pedro sold his portion of Lot 2535 to Faustina Manreal, who later conveyed a portion of the land to one of her heirs, Alejandra Balorio. The land was subsequently sold to Edith N. Deen, who then sold it to Atty. Eddy A. Deen. After Atty. Deen's death, an extra-judicial settlement of the estate was executed, which did not include Lot 2535. The heirs then executed an Additional Extra-Judicial Settlement with an Absolute Deed of Sale, selling the land to Norberto B. Bas. Norberto built a house on the land and upon his death, was succeeded by his niece, Lolita Bas Capablanca. Lolita discovered that Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-96676 was issued in the names of Andres and Pedro based on a reconstituted Deed of Conveyance. Lolita filed a complaint for the cancellation of the titles with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. The trial court ruled in favor of Lolita, upholding the validity of the 1939 Deed of Sale and determining that the heirs of Pedro Bas acquired no portion of Lot 2535 by inheritance.

Lolita then filed a case against the Heirs of Pedro Bas before the RTC seeking the nullification of several transfer certificates of title (TCTs) issued in their names. The RTC declared the TCTs null and void and ordered their cancellation. The Heirs of Pedro Bas filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Lolita lacked cause of action since she had not been declared as the sole heir of Norberto Bas in a proper special proceeding. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision and dismissed Lolita's complaint, stating that she must first be declared as sole heir in a subsequent proceeding. Lolita filed a petition for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. She then brought her case to the Supreme Court, asserting that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a separate proceeding for the declaration of heirship is necessary in order to resolve the action for cancellation of titles of the property.

  2. Whether the failure of the respondents to raise the lack of cause of action as an affirmative defense or file a motion to dismiss constitutes a waiver.

  3. Whether the determination of the issue of heirship is within the exclusive competence of the court in the special proceedings.

  4. Whether questions on the status and right of the contending parties must be properly ventilated in the appropriate special proceeding, not in an ordinary civil action.

  5. Is a separate special proceeding necessary to establish filiation and heirship?

  6. Did the respondents dispute the evidence presented by the petitioner?

RULING:

  1. No, a separate proceeding for the declaration of heirship is not necessary. The dispute in this case is not about the heirship of the petitioner but the validity of the sale of the property. The petitioner's claim is based on a sale of the property to her predecessor-in-interest and not on any filiation with the original owner. The court held that no judicial declaration of heirship is necessary for an heir to assert his or her right to the property of the deceased.

  2. Yes, the failure of the respondents to raise the lack of cause of action as an affirmative defense or file a motion to dismiss constitutes a waiver. Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states that defenses and objections not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.

  3. The determination of the issue of heirship is within the exclusive competence of the court in the special proceedings. The declaration in a civil case that Marcosa was the only heir of the decedent in a special proceeding was improper because the determination of the issue was within the exclusive competence of the court in the special proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate.

  4. Questions on the status and right of the contending parties must be properly ventilated in the appropriate special proceeding, not in an ordinary civil action. Adverse parties who claim to be putative heirs to a decedent's estate or parties to the special proceedings for an estate's settlement must have their questions on their status and right properly ventilated in the appropriate special proceeding, not in an ordinary civil action.

  5. No, a separate special proceeding is not necessary to establish filiation and heirship.

  6. No, the respondents did not dispute the evidence presented by the petitioner.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The property of a deceased person becomes the property of the heir by the mere fact of the death of the predecessor in interest, and the heir can assert his or her right to the property without a prior judicial declaration of heirship.

  • Defendants must raise the lack of cause of action as an affirmative defense or file a motion to dismiss in order to preserve the issue; otherwise, it is deemed waived.

  • The determination of heirship is within the exclusive competence of the court in the special proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate.

  • Questions on the status and right of putative heirs to a decedent's estate must be properly ventilated in the appropriate special proceeding, not in an ordinary civil action.

  • Parties to a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate should not resort to separate civil actions to assert their claims, but should raise and protect their rights within the confines of the special proceeding.

  • Courts should avoid interfering with probate proceedings pending in a co-equal court in the interest of orderly procedure and to avoid confusing and conflicting dispositions of a decedent's estate.

  • In certain circumstances where there is no compelling reason to subject an estate to administration proceedings, a determination of the heirs' status can be achieved in a civil case.

  • A separate special proceeding is not necessary when filiation and heirship has already been established and there is no dispute on the evidence presented.

  • The court may grant the petition and vacate the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals if there is no necessity for a separate special proceeding and the evidence presented by the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents.