1.

Ching v Rodriguez
FACTS:
Respondents filed a Complaint against the petitioners and Stronghold Insurance
Company, Global Business Bank, Inc., Elena Tiu Del Pilar, Asia Atlantic Resources Ventures,
Inc., Registers of Deeds of Manila and Malabon, and all persons claiming rights or titles from
Ramon Ching (Ramon) and his successors-in-interest.
The Complaint, captioned as one for "Disinheritance, Declaration of Nullity of
Agreement and Waiver, Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale,
Transfer Certificates of Title with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction,"
Respondents averred six (6) causes of action in their original complaint. Thus,
Respondent prayed for the following:
1.) a temporary restraining order be issued restraining the defendant RAMON
CHING and/or his attorney-in-fact Belen Dy Tan Ching from disposing, selling
or alienating any property that belongs to the estate of the deceased ANTONIO
CHING; 2
2.)
Declaring that the defendant RAMON CHING who murdered his father
ANTONIO CHING disqualified as heir and from inheriting to (sic) the estate
of his father;
3.) Declaring the nullity of the defendant RAMON CHING transfer (sic) of the six
(6) parcels of land from the name of his father ANTONIO CHING to his name
4.)

Declaring the nullity of the AGREEMENT and WAIVER executed by plaintiffs

xxx in favor of xxx RAMON CHING for being patently immoral, invalid,
illegal, simulated and (sic) sham;

5.)

Declaring the nullity of the transfer of the shares of stocks at (sic) PO WING
from the names of ANTONIO CHING and LUCINA SANTOS to the
defendant ANTONIO CHING's name for having been illegally procured
through the falsification of their signatures in the document purporting the
transfer thereof;

6.)

Declaring the nullity and to have no force and effect the AFFIDAVIT OF
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE executed by RAMON CHING for being contrary
to law and existing jurisprudence;

7.)

8.)

Declaring the nullity of the DEED OF SALES (sic) executed by RAMON

CHING (i) over two (2) parcels of land to defendant ASIA ATLANTIC
BUSINESS VENTURES, Inc.; and (ii) one (1) parcel of land sold to ELENA
TIU DEL PILAR for having illegally procured the ownership and titles of the
above properties;
Declare the Certificate of Premium Plus Acq rightfully owned by them and that
it be immediately released to them. Alternatively, the respondents prayed for
the issuance of a hold order relative to the CPPA to preserve it during the
pendency of the case.

On January 18, 2007, the petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the respondents'
Amended Complaint on the alleged ground of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the Complaint.
The petitioners argued that since the Amended Complaint sought the release of the
CPPA to the respondents, the latter's declaration as heirs of Antonio, and the propriety of
Ramon's disinheritance, the suit partakes of the nature of a special proceeding and not an
ordinary action for declaration of nullity. Hence, jurisdiction pertains to a probate or intestate
court and not to the RTC acting as an ordinary court.
The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA.
ISSUE:
WON the RTC should have granted the Motion to Dismiss filed
by the Petitioners on the alleged ground of the RTCs lack of Jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the amended.
HELD:
We resolve to deny the instant petition.
An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil action,
whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement
of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding, which
concomitantly requires the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of
Court. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a
right, or a particular fact. It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action where a party
sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of
a wrong. To initiate a special proceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be filed.
On the Disinheritance of Ramon
Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can be effected only through a will
wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. While the respondents in their Complaint
and Amended Complaint sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument
supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate was ever mentioned. Hence, despite
the prayer for Ramon's disinheritance, Civil Case No. 02-105251 does not partake of the
nature of a special proceeding and does not call for the probate court's exercise of its limited
jurisdiction.
The petitioners also argue that the prayers in the Amended Complaint, seeking the
release in favor of the respondents of the CPPA under Metrobank's custody and the
nullification of the instruments subject of the complaint, necessarily require the determination
of the respondents' status as Antonio's heirs.
In Marjorie Cadimas v. Marites Carrion and Gemma Hugo, the Court declared:
It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction of the
court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As a necessary
consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon

the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for
otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon
the defendant. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of
the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The
averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the
matters to be consulted.
It can thus be said that the respondents' prayer relative to the CPPA was premised on
Mercedes' prior possession of and their alleged collective ownership of the same,
and not on the declaration of their status as Antonio's heirs. Further, it also has to be
emphasized that the respondents were parties to the execution of the Agreement [if !
supportFootnotes][35][endif]
and Waiver[if !supportFootnotes][36][endif] prayed to be nullified.
Hence, even without the necessity of being declared as heirs of Antonio, the
respondents have the standing to seek for the nullification of the instruments in the
light of their claims that there was no consideration for their execution, and that
Ramon exercised undue influence and committed fraud against them.
Consequently, the respondents then claimed that the Affidavit of Extra-Judicial
Settlement of Antonios estate executed by Ramon, and the TCTs issued upon the
authority of the said affidavit, are null and void as well. Ramon's averment that a
resolution of the issues raised shall first require a declaration of the respondents'
status as heirs is a mere defense which is not determinative of which court shall
properly exercise jurisdiction.

does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the
proceedings.

Whether or not a separate civil action for annulment of sale and reconveyance of title, despite
the pendency of the settlement proceedings for the estate of the late Judge Dante Y. Romero
may prosper.
NO. Sec. 3. Heir may not sue until share assigned. - When an executor or administrator is
appointed and assumes the trust, no action to recover the title or possession of lands or for
damages done to such lands shall be maintained against him by an heir or devisee until there is
an order of the court assigning such lands to such heir or devisee or until the time allowed for
paying debts has expired.
Court allowed the probate court to provisionally pass upon the issue of title, precisely because
the only interested parties are all heirs to the estate, subject of the proceeding, viz:
true that a probate courts determination of ownership over properties which may form part of
the estate is not final or ultimate in nature, this rule is applicable only as between the
representatives of the estate and strangers thereto.
The issue before the court is not really one of title or ownership, but the determination of
which particular properties should be included in the inventory of the estate. In Civil Case No.
18757, the RTC has listed the properties alleged by petitioners to have been conjugal
properties of their parents and, therefore, part of the estate that was illegally sold to the
respondent. Some of these real properties identified seem to be the same real properties that
form part of the inventory of the estate in the intestate proceedings.

Romero v CA
On 1974, when Judge Romero died his wife, Aurora was appointed as legal guardian.
During the pendency of Settlement Proceedings of the estate of their deceased father,
Leo and David Romero Mother Aurora and brother Vittorio; filed a Complaint for
Annulment of Sale, Nullification of Title, and Conveyance of Title

alleging that their brother Vittorio through fraud, misrepresentation and

duress, succeeded in registering the several properties in his name through of Deeds
of Sale executed by their mother, Aurora.

The RTC denied this, citing Section 3, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court which bars an heir or a
devisee from maintaining an action to recover the title or possession of lands until such lands
have actually been assigned.
plaintiffs must first cause the
termination of settlement proceedings to its logical conclusion before their case could be
entertained by the Court.

Petitioners contend: RTC sitting as a probate or intestate court relates only to matters having
to do with the settlement of the estate of deceased persons or the appointment of executors, but

In the present case, petitioners assume that the properties subject of the allegedly illegal sale
are conjugal and constitute part of their share in the estate. To date, there has been no final
inventory of the estate or final order adjudicating the shares of the heirs. Thus, only the
probate court can competently rule on whether the properties are conjugal and form part of the
estate. It is only the probate court that can liquidate the conjugal partnership and distribute the
same to the heirs, after the debts of the estate have been paid.
petitioners do not pose issues pertaining to title or ownership. They are, in effect, questioning
the validity of the sales made by the administrator, an issue that can only be properly threshed
out by the probate court.
implicit in the requirement for judicial approval of sales of property under administration is
the recognition that the probate court has the power to rescind or nullify the disposition of a
property under administration that was effected without its authority.[24] That petitioners
have the prerogative of choosing where to file their action for nullification whether with the
probate court or the regular court is erroneous.
the validity of the sales made by Aurora, allegedly orchestrated by petitioners co-heir, Vittorio,
can only be determined by the probate court, because it is the probate court which is
empowered to identify the nature of the property, and that has jurisdiction over Auroras
actions and dispositions as administrator.

Article 839- Undue Influence

4 Nepomuceno v CA

pretentions of petitioner Sofia Nepomuceno are unbelievable

Facts:

They are, to say the least, inherently improbable, for they are against the experience in
common life and the ordinary instincts and promptings of human nature that a woman would
not bother at all to ask the man she was going to marry whether or not he was already married
to another, knowing that her groom had children. It would be a story that would strain human
credulity to the limit if petitioner did not know that Martin Jugo was already a married man in
view of the irrefutable fact that it was precisely his marriage to respondent Rufina Gomez that
led petitioner to break off with the deceased during their younger years.

1. Martin Hugo died on 1974 and he left a will wherein he instituted Sofia Nepomuceno as the
sole and only executor. It was also provided therein that he was married to Rufina Gomez with
whom he had 3 children.
2. Petitioner (Sofia) filed for the probate of the will but the legal wife and her children
opposed alleging that the will was procured through improper and undue influence and that
there was an admission of concubinage with the petitioner.
Will provided that:
Art. IV. That since 1952, 1 have been living, as man and wife with one Sofia J.
Nepomuceno, whom I declare and avow to be entitled to my love and affection, for
all the things which she has done for me, now and in the past; that while Sofia J.
Nepomuceno has with my full knowledge and consent, did comport and represent
myself as her own husband, in truth and in fact, as well as in the eyes of the law, I
could not bind her to me in the holy bonds of matrimony because of my
aforementioned previous marriage;

Moreover, the prohibition in Article 739 of the Civil Code is against the making of a donation
between persons who are living in adultery or concubinage. It is the donation which becomes
void. The giver cannot give even assuming that the recipient may receive. The very wordings
of the Will invalidate the legacy because the testator admitted he was disposing the properties
to a person with whom he had been living in concubinage.
The devisee is invalid by virtue of Art. 739 which voids a donation made between persons
guilty of adultery/concubinage at the time of the donations. Under Art, 1028 it is also
prohibited.

Sofia contends: she is in good faith, believing for 22yrs that they were married.
6 Haynes v First National State Bank New Jersey
3. The lower court denied the probate on the ground of the testator's admission of cohabitation,
hence making the will invalid on its face. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the will
is valid except the devise in favor of the petitioner which is null and void in violation of Art.
739 and 1028.
Issue: Whether or not the court can pass on the intrinsic validity of a will
W/N in good faith. NO.

RULING: Yes, as an exception.

GR: court's area of inquiry is limited to the an examination and resolution of the extrinsic
validity of the will.
Exc: may pass upon certain provisions of the will. The will itself admitted on its face the
relationship between the testator and the petitioner.
The will was validly executed in accordance with law but the court didn't find it to serve a
practical purpose to remand the nullified provision in a separate action for that purpose only
since in the probate of a will, the court does not ordinarily look into the intrinsic validity of its
provisions.

Testator was left a large estate after the death of her husband. She had two daughters, Betty
Haynes and Dorcas Cotsworth, each who had children of their own. Haynes and her two sons
came to live with testator after her husbands death. Gaynes sons moved away at the
disappointment of their grandmother, however Gaynes continued to live with her mother until
her own death. Testator then went to live with her younger daughter, Cotsworth. During
testators lifetime she executed many wills and trusts agreements which were prepared by a
long time family attorney, Richard Stevents. After moving in with her younger daughter,
testator executed a will leaving most of her estate to her daughter Cotsworth and very little to
her two grandsons. This will was drawn up by the Cotsworth family attorney after several
conversations between the Cotsworth family and the attorney. Plaintiffs, testators grandsons,
sought to set aside the will on grounds of undue influence arising from the
confidential relationship between testator and her daughter, the chief beneficiary. The trial
court held that the Defendants rebutted the presumption of undue influence and that an in
terrorem clause in the will was unenforceable. The appeals court affirmed but held the clause
enforceable. Plaintiffs now appeal.
W/N there was undue influence.
A presumption of undue influence created by a professional conflict of interest on the part of
an attorney, coupled with confidential relationships between a testator and the beneficiary,
must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The matter must therefore be remanded to
the trial court for new findings of fact and conclusions of law based on this burden of proof.

The burden of proving undue influence lies upon the contestant

Alfoso executed 4 Deeds of Sale- that in favor of Policronio covered 6 parcels

UNLESS: the will benefits one who stood in a confidential relationship to the testatrix and
there are additional circumstances of a suspicious character present which require explanation

-to invate inheritance tax

Policronio thereafter died. Neither him nor his heirs took possession of the subject lands
except for a portion of the 5th parcel.

To raise presumption of undue influence:

1.

2.

confidential relationship between the testator and a beneficiary.

a. HERE: testator was dependent on her sole surviving child for care and
support.
i.
the presumption needs the presence of suspicious circumstances which will shift
the burden of proof to the proponent of the will.
a. HERE: drastically altered by the family attorney of the chief beneficiary.
The Court goes onto determine that a significant burden of proof needs to
be imposed on a proponent of a will in such circumstances and therefore
remands to determine if the proponents can meet such burden.
b. testator's attorney has placed himself in a conflict of interest and
professional loyalty between the testator and the beneficiary
i. must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence

Preterition
omission in the testator's will of the forced
heirs or anyone of them

Disinheritance
testamentary disposition depriving any
compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for
a cause authorized by law.

they are not mentioned therein, or, though

mentioned, they are neither instituted as
heirs nor are expressly disinherited.
5 Heirs of Ureta v Heirs of Ureta
Alfonso had 14 children- 2 of them were Policronio and

Alfonsos heirs executed Deed of extrajudicial partition.

Heirs of P found tax declaration in his name covering 6 parcels of land.
Believing those belonged to their late father, they were excluded from partition.

Heirs of Alfonso were of the position that the absence of the Heirs of Policronio in the
partition or the lack of authority of their representative results, at the very least, in their
preterition and not in the invalidity of the entire deed of partition. Assuming there was actual
preterition, it did not render the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition voidable. Citing Article 1104
of the Civil Code, they aver that a partition made with preterition of any of the compulsory
heirs shall not be rescinded, but the heirs shall be proportionately obliged to pay the share of
the person omitted.
Preterition has been defined as the total omission of a compulsory heir from the inheritance. It
consists in the silence of the testator with regard to a compulsory heir, omitting him in the
testament, either by not mentioning him at all, or by not giving him anything in the hereditary
property but without expressly disinheriting him, even if he is mentioned in the will in the
latter case.[57] Preterition is thus a concept of testamentary succession and requires a will. In
the case at bench, there is no will involved. Therefore, preterition cannot apply.