Rulings in Special Proceedings (Rules 72-73)

CASE DOCTRINES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Rules 72-73)

Prepared by Glenn Rey Anino

University of Cebu

1.   Pacific Banking Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 109373, March 20, 1995 (242 SCRA 492)

Elucidating the crucial distinction between an ordinary action and a special proceeding, Chief Justice Moran states:" 

Action is the act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while special proceeding is the act by which one seeks to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Hence, action is distinguished from special proceeding in that the former is a formal demand of a right by one against another, while the latter is but a petition for a declaration of a status, right or fact. Where a party litigant seeks to recover property from another, his remedy is to file an action. Where his purpose is to seek the appointment of a guardian for an insane, his remedy is a special proceeding to establish the fact or status of insanity calling for an appointment of guardianship.

Considering this distinction, a petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation should be classified a special proceeding and not an ordinary action. Such petition does not seek the enforcement or protection of a right nor the prevention or redress of a wrong against a party. It does not pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from a party's wrongful act or omission nor state a cause of action that can be enforced against any person.

What it seeks is merely a declaration by the trial court of the corporation's insolvency so that its creditors may be able to file their claims in the settlement of the corporation's debts and obligations. Put in another way, the petition only seeks a declaration of the corporation's debts and obligations. Put in another way, the petition only seeks a declaration of the corporation's state of insolvency and the concomitant right of creditors and the order of payment of their claims in the disposition of the corporation's assets.

Contrary to the rulings of the Fourteenth Division, liquidation proceedings do not resemble petitions for interpleader. For one, an action for interpleader involves claims on a subject matter against a person who has no interest therein. This is not the case in a liquidation proceeding where the Liquidator, as representative of the corporation, takes charge of its assets and liabilities for the benefit of the creditors. He is thus charged with insuring that the assets of the corporation are paid only to rightful claimants and in the order of payment provided by law.

Rather, a liquidation proceeding resembles the proceeding for the settlement of state of deceased persons under Rules 73 to 91 of the Rules of Court. The two have a common purpose: the determination of all the assets and the payment of all the debts and liabilities of the insolvent corporation or the estate. The Liquidator and the administrator or executor are both charged with the assets for the benefit of the claimants. In both instances, the liability of the corporation and the estate is not disputed. The court's concern is with the declaration of creditors and their rights and the determination of their order of payment.

Furthermore, as in the settlement of estates, multiple appeals are allowed in proceedings for liquidation of an insolvent corporation.

In G.R. No. 112991 (the case of the Stockholders/Investors), the Liquidator's notice of appeal was filed on time, having been filed on the 23rd day of receipt of the order granting the claims of the Stockholders/Investors. However, the Liquidator did not file a record on appeal with the result that he failed to perfect his appeal. As already stated a record on appeal is required under the Interim Rules and Guidelines in special proceedings and for cases where multiple appeals are allowed. The reason for this is that the several claims are actually separate ones and a decision or final order with respect to any claim can be appealed. Necessarily the original record on appeal must remain in the trial court where other claims may still be pending.

The Union's contention is untenable. In liquidation proceedings, the function of the trial court is not limited to assisting in the implementation of the orders of the Monetary Board. Under the same section (§29) of the law invoked by the Union, the court has authority to set aside the decision of the Monetary Board "if there is a convincing proof that the action is plainly arbitrary and made in bad faith." 

2.   Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 163604, May 6, 2005(458 SCRA 200)

Since Title XI of the Family Code, entitled SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN THE FAMILY LAW, contains the following provision, inter alia:

Art. 238. Unless modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all casesprovided for in this Codes requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

there is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc required, and is, therefore, a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal for which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial court’s order sufficed.

On the alleged procedural flaw in petitioner’s petition before the appellate court. Petitioner’s failure to attach to his petition before the appellate court a copy of the trial court’s order denying its motion for reconsideration of the disapproval of its Notice of Appeal is not necessarily fatal, for the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a technical sense. Given the issue raised before it by petitioner, what the appellate court should have done was to direct petitioner to comply with the rule.

3.   Vda. de Reyes v. CA, G.R. No. L-47027, January 27, 1989 (169 SCRA 524)

It is well settled that even if a decision has become final, clerical errors or mistakes or omission plainly due to inadvertence or negligence may be corrected or supplied even after the judgment has been entered. The correction of a clerical error is an exception to the general rule that no amendment or correction may be made by the court in its judgment once the latter had become final. ¹¹ The court may make this amendment ex parte and, for this purpose, it may resort to the pleadings filed by the parties, the court's findings of facts and its conclusions of law as expressed in the body of the decision. 

That a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate is filed and intended to settle the entire estate of the deceased is obvious and elementary. It would be absurd for the heirs to intentionally excluded or leave a parcel of land or a portion thereof undistributed or undivided because the proceeding is precisely designed to end the community of interests in properties held by co-partners pro indiviso without designation or segregation of shares.

4.   Uriarte v. CFI, G.R. Nos. L-21938-39, October 29, 1970 (33 SCRA 252)

Under the Judiciary Act of 1948 [Section 44, paragraph (e)], Courts of First Instance have original exclusive jurisdiction over "all matters of probate," that is, over special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons — whether they died testate or intestate.

The matter of venue, or the particular Court of First Instance where the special proceeding should be commenced, is regulated by former Rule 75, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, now Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides that the estate of a decedent inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, shall be in the court of first instance in the province in which he resided at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the court of first instance of any province in which he had estate.

In accordance with settled jurisprudence in this jurisdiction, testate proceedings, for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose. Thus it has been held repeatedly that, if in the course of intestate proceedings pending before a court of first instance it is found it hat the decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to render final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed. This, however, is understood to be without prejudice that should the alleged last will be rejected or is disapproved, the proceeding shall continue as an intestacy.

Where intestate proceedings before a court of first instance had already been commenced, the probate of the will should be filed in the same court, either in a separate special proceeding or in an appropriate motion for said purpose filed in the already pending intestate proceeding.  This is especially true where the party seeking the probate of the will had been informed or had knowledge of the pendency of the intestate proceedings.  It is not in accord with public policy and the orderly and inexpensive administration of justice to unnecessarily multiply litigation, especially if several courts would be involved, which would be the result if the probate of will were filed in another court.

It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that wrong venue is merely a waiveable procedural defect, and such waiver may occur by laches where, a party had been served notice of the filing of the probate petition for about a year and allowed the proceedings to continue for such time before filing a motion to dismiss the same.

A party claiming to be an acknowledged natural child of testator is entitled to intervene in proceedings for the probate of will of testator if it is still open, or to ask for its reopening if it has already been closed, so as to be able to submit for determination the question of his acknowledgment as a natural child of the deceased testator, said court having, in its capacity as a probate court, jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of the deceased testator and whether or not a particular party is or should be declared his acknowledged natural child.

5.   Roberts v. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-55509, April 27, 1984 (129 SCRA 33)

A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and "no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court).

The probate of the will is mandatory (Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479 and 98 Phil. 249; Baluyot vs. Panio, L-42088, May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 86). It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.

6.   Advincula v. Teodoro, G.R. No. L-9282,  May 31, 1956, (99 Phil 413)

The provision of Section 4 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court which provides that “when a will has been proved and allowed, the Court shall issue letters testamentary thereon to the person named as executor therein, if he is competent, accepts the trusts, and gives bond as required by these rules”, cannot be enforced, until after said document has been allowed to probate.

The discovery of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of a deceased, after the appointment of an administrator of the estate of the latter, upon the assumption that he or she had died intestate, does not ipso facto nullify the letters of administration already issued or even authorize the revocation thereof, until the alleged will has been “proved and allowed by the court.” (Rule 83, section 1, of the Rules of Court)

It is untenable from the viewpoint of logic and experience, because a stranger to deceased may be competent, capable and fit to administer her estate, in much the same as a member of her immediate family could be incompetent, incapable and unfit to do so. At any rate, Advincula is not a stranger, either to her or to her estate, he bring her surviving spouse and, as such, one of her forced heirs (Arts. 887, 888, 892, 893, 894, 897 to 900, and 995 to 1001, Civil Code of the Philippines), whether she died testate or intestate. What is more, he is prima facie entitled to one-half of all property subject to the authority of the administrator of said estate, apart from his share of the other half thereof, as heir of the deceased, for “all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership” — of which he is its administrator (Article 165, Civil Code of the Philippines) — “unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife” (See Articles 160 and 185, Civil Code of the Philippines).

7.   Lim vs. CA, G.R. No. 124715, January 24, 2000 (323 SCRA 102)

The determination of which court exercises jurisdiction over matters of probate depends upon the gross value of the estate of the decedent.

Inasmuch as the real properties included in the inventory of the estate of the Late Pastor Y. Lim are in the possession of and are registered in the name of private respondent corporations, which under the law possess a personality separate and distinct from their stockholders, and in the absence of any cogency to shred the veil of corporate fiction, the presumption of conclusiveness of said titles in favor of private respondents should stand undisturbed.

It is settled that a corporation is clothed with personality separate and distinct from that of the persons composing it. It may not generally be held liable for that of the persons composing it. It may not be held liable for the personal indebtedness of its stockholders or those of the entities connected with it.²⁸

Rudimentary is the rule that a corporation is invested by law with a personality distinct and separate from its stockholders or members. In the same vein, a corporation by legal fiction and convenience is an entity shielded by a protective mantle and imbued by law with a character alien to the persons comprising it.

Nonetheless, the shield is not at all times invincible. Thus, in FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK vs.COURT OF APPEALS, We enunciated:

. . . When the fiction is urged as a means of perpetrating a fraud or an illegal act or as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation, the circumvention of statutes, the achievement or perfection of a monopoly or generally the perpetration of knavery or crime, the veil with which the law covers and isolates the corporation from the members or stockholders who compose it will be lifted to allow for its consideration merely as an aggregation of individuals. . . .

Piercing the veil of corporate entity requires the court to see through the protective shroud which exempts its stockholders from liabilities that ordinarily, they could be subject to, or distinguishes one corporation from a seemingly separate one, were it not for the existing corporate fiction.

The corporate mask may be lifted and the corporate veil may be pierced when a corporation is just but the alter ego of a person or of another corporation. Where badges of fraud exist, where public convenience is defeated; where a wrong is sought to be justified thereby, the corporate fiction or the notion of legal entity should come to naught.

Further, the test in determining the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is as follows: 1) Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; (2) Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetuate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiffs legal right; and (3) The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of. The absence of any of these elements prevent "piercing the corporate veil".

Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for disregarding the fiction of separate corporate personalities.

Moreover, to disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrong-doing must be clearly and convincingly established. It cannot be presumed.

Granting arguendo that the Regional Trial Court in this case was not merely acting in a limited capacity as a probate court, petitioner nonetheless failed to adduce competent evidence that would have justified the court to impale the veil of corporate fiction. Truly, the reliance reposed by petitioner on the affidavits executed by Teresa Lim and Lani Wenceslao is unavailing considering that the aforementioned documents possess no weighty probative value pursuant to the hearsay rule. Besides it is imperative for us to stress that such affidavits are inadmissible in evidence inasmuch as the affiants were not at all presented during the course of the proceedings in the lower court. To put it differently, for this Court to uphold the admissibility of said documents would be to relegate from Our duty to apply such basic rule of evidence in a manner consistent with the law and jurisprudence.

8.   Consolidated Bank v. IAC, G.R. No. 75017, June 3, 1991 (198 SCRA 34)

Questions or issues relating to venue of actions are basically governed by Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. It is said that the laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive. It relates to the jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the subject matter. Provisions relating to venue establish a relation between the plaintiff and the defendant and not between the court and the subject matter. Venue relates to trial not to jurisdiction, touches more of the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case.

The action in the present case pertains to the probate of the intestate estate of the late Don Vicente Madrigal, in which case a regional trial court properly has jurisdiction over the case, both under the Judiciary Act of 1948, Sec. 44 (e) and under BP 129, Sec. 19(4).

Objection to improper venue should be made in a motion to dismiss. Until this is done, venue cannot truly be said to have been improperly laid.

Regrettably, therefore, whale We agree with the petitioner that venue in this case should have been laid in Quezon City, petitioner's inaction has worked against it:

It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that wrong venue is merely a waiveable procedural defect, and such waiver may occur by laches . . . (Uriarte v. CFI of Negros Occ., G.R. Nos. L-21938-39, October 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 252 at p. 261)

Foregoing considered, We agree with the Court of Appeals that indeed, petitioner has waived its right to contest the question of venue.

9.   Jao v. CA, G.R. No. 128314, May 29, 2002 (382 SCRA 407)

The main issue before us is: where should the settlement proceedings be had --- in Pampanga, where the decedents had their permanent residence, or in Quezon City, where they actually stayed before their demise?

Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:

Where estate of deceased persons be settled. – If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. (underscoring ours)

Clearly, the estate of an inhabitant of the Philippines shall be settled or letters of administration granted in the proper court located in the province where the decedent resides at the time of his death.

Petitioner Rodolfo invokes our ruling in the case of Eusebio v. Eusebio, et al.,¹⁴ where we held that the situs of settlement proceedings shall be the place where the decedent had his permanent residence or domicile at the time of death. In determining residence at the time of death, the following factors must be considered, namely, the decedent had: (a) capacity to choose and freedom of choice; (b) physical presence at the place chosen; and (c) intention to stay therein permanently.¹⁵ While it appears that the decedents in this case chose to be physically present in Quezon City for medical convenience, petitioner avers that they never adopted Quezon City as their permanent residence.

The recitals in the death certificates, which are admissible in evidence, were thus properly considered and presumed to be correct by the court a quo. We agree with the appellate court’s observation that since the death certificates were accomplished even before petitioner and respondent quarreled over their inheritance, they may be relied upon to reflect the true situation at the time of their parents’ death.

The death certificates thus prevailed as proofs of the decedents’ residence at the time of death, over the numerous documentary evidence presented by petitioner. To be sure, the documents presented by petitioner pertained not to residence at the time of death, as required by the Rules of Court, but to permanent residence or domicile. In Garcia-Fule v. Court of Appeals,¹⁶ we held:

xxx xxx xxx the term "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual residence" as distinguished from "legal residence or domicile." This term "resides", like the terms "residing" and "residence", is elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. In the application of venue statutes and rules – Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature – residence rather than domicile is the significant factor. Even where the statute uses the word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant." In other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one’s domicile. No particular length of time of residence is required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary.

It does not necessarily follow that the records of a person’s properties are kept in the place where he permanently resides. Neither can it be presumed that a person’s properties can be found mostly in the place where he establishes his domicile. It may be that he has his domicile in a place different from that where he keeps his records, or where he maintains extensive personal and business interests. No generalizations can thus be formulated on the matter, as the question of where to keep records or retain properties is entirely dependent upon an individual’s choice and peculiarities.

At any rate, petitioner is obviously splitting straws when he differentiates between venue in ordinary civil actions and venue in special proceedings. In Raymond v. Court of Appeals and Bejer v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that venue for ordinary civil actions and that for special proceedings have one and the same meaning. As thus defined, "residence", in the context of venue provisions, means nothing more than a person’s actual residence or place of abode, provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency. All told, the lower court and the Court of Appeals correctly held that venue for the settlement of the decedents’ intestate estate was properly laid in the Quezon City court.

10.               Heirs of Sandejas v. Lina, G.R. No. 141634, February 5, 2001 (351 SCRA 183)

When a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its birth or effectivity can take place only if and when the condition happens or is fulfilled.¹¹ Thus, the intestate court's grant of the Motion for Approval of the sale filed by respondent resulted in petitioners' obligation to execute the Deed of Sale of the disputed lots in his favor. The condition having been satisfied, the contract was perfected. Henceforth, the parties were bound to fulfil what they had expressly agreed upon.

Court approval is required in any disposition of the decedent's estate per Rule 89 of the Rules of Court. Reference to judicial approval, however, cannot adversely affect the substantive rights of heirs to dispose of their own pro indiviso shares in the co-heirship or co-ownership.¹² In other words, they can sell their rights, interests or participation in the property under administration. A stipulation requiring court approval does not affect the validity and the effectivity of the sale as regards the selling heirs. It merely implies that the property may be taken out ofcustodia legis, but only with the court's permission.¹³ It would seem that the suspensive condition in the present conditional sale was imposed only for this reason.

Because petitioners did not consent to the sale of their ideal shares in the disputed lots, the CA correctly limited the scope of the Receipt to the pro-indiviso share of Eliodoro Sr. Thus, it correctly modified the intestate court's ruling by excluding their shares from the ambit of the transaction.

. We hold that Section 8 of Rule 89 allows this action to proceed. The factual differences alleged by petitioners have no bearing on the intestate court's jurisdiction over the approval of the subject conditional sale. Probate jurisdiction covers all matters relating to the settlement of estates (Rules 74 & 86-91) and the probate of wills (Rules 75-77) of deceased persons, including the appointment and the removal of administrators and executors (Rules 78-85). It also extends to matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of a probate court's recognized powers such as selling, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering realty belonging to the estate. Indeed, the rules on this point are intended to settle the estate in a speedy manner, so that the benefits that may flow from such settlement may be immediately enjoyed by the heirs and the beneficiaries.¹⁶

Petitioners contend that under said Rule 89, only the executor or administrator is authorized to apply for the approval of a sale of realty under administration. Hence, the settlement court allegedly erred in entertaining and granting respondent's Motion for Approval.

We read no such limitation. Section 8, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court, provides:

"SEC. 8. When court may authorize conveyance of realty which deceased contracted to convey. Notice. Effect of deed. -- Where the deceased was in his lifetime under contract, binding in law, to deed real property, or an interest therein, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, on application for that purpose, authorize the executor or administrator to convey such property according to such contract, or with such modifications as are agreed upon by the parties and approved by the court; and if the contract is to convey real property to the executor or administrator, the clerk of the court shall execute the deed. x x x."

This provision should be differentiated from Sections 2 and 4 of the same Rule, specifically requiring only the executor or administrator to file the application for authority to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber real estate for the purpose of paying debts, expenses and legacies (Section 2);¹⁹ or for authority to sell real or personal estate beneficial to the heirs, devisees or legatees and other interested persons, although such authority is not necessary to pay debts, legacies or expenses of administration (Section 4).²⁰ Section 8 mentions only an application to authorize the conveyance of realty under a contract that the deceased entered into while still alive. While this Rule does not specify who should file the application, it stands to reason that the proper party must be one .who is to be benefited or injured by the judgment, or one who is to be entitled to the avails of the suit.²¹

Petitioners aver that the CA's computation of Eliodoro Sr.'s share in the disputed parcels of land was erroneous because, as the conjugal partner of Remedios, he owned one half of these lots plus a further one tenth of the remaining half, in his capacity as a one of her legal heirs. Hence, Eliodoro's share should be 11/20 of the entire property. Respondent poses no objection to this computation.²²

On the other hand, the CA held that, at the very least, the conditional sale should cover the one half (1/2) pro indiviso conjugal share of Eliodoro plus his one tenth (1/10) hereditary share as one of the ten legal heirs of the decedent, or a total of three fifths (3/5) of the lots in administration.²³

Petitioners' correct. The CA computed Eliodoro's share as an heir based on one tenth of the entire disputed property. It should be based only on the remaining half, after deducting the conjugal share.²⁴

The proper determination of the seller-heir's shares requires further explanation. Succession laws and jurisprudence require that when a marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or the wife, the decedent's entire estate - under the concept of conjugal properties of gains -- must be divided equally, with one half going to the surviving spouse and the other half to the heirs of the deceased.²⁵ After the settlement of the debts and obligations, the remaining half of the estate is then distributed to the legal heirs, legatees and devices. We assume, however, that this preliminary determination of the decedent's estate has already been taken into account by the parties, since the only issue raised in this case is whether Eliodoro's share is 11/20 or 3/5 of the disputed lots.

11.               Vda. de Manalo v. CA, G.R. No. 129242, January 16, 2001 (349 SCRA 135)

It is a fundamental rule that in the determination of the nature of an action or proceeding, the averments¹⁵ and the character of the relief sought ¹⁶ in the complaint, or petition, as in the case at bar, shall be controlling. A careful srutiny of the Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estatein SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 belies herein petitioners' claim that the same is in the nature of an ordinary civil action. The said petition contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate of a deceased person such as the fat of death of the late Troadio Manalo on February 14, 1992, as well as his residence in the City of Manila at the time of his said death. The fact of death of the decedent and of his residence within he country are foundation facts upon which all the subsequent proceedings in the administration of the estate rest.¹⁷The petition is SP.PROC No. 92-63626 also contains an enumeration of the names of his legal heirs including a tentative list of the properties left by the deceased which are sought to be settled in the probate proceedings. In addition, the relief's prayed for in the said petition leave no room for doubt as regard the intention of the petitioners therein (private respondents herein) to seek judicial settlement of the estate of their deceased father, Troadio Manalo.

It is our view that herein petitioners may not be allowed to defeat the purpose of the essentially valid petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Troadio Manalo by raising matters that as irrelevant and immaterial to the said petition. It must be emphasized that the trial court, siting as a probate court, has limited and special jurisdiction ²⁰ and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which may be properly threshed out only in an ordinary civil action. In addition, the rule has always been to the effect that the jurisdiction of a court, as well as the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the averments in the complaint and not by the defenses contained in the answer. If it were otherwise, it would not be too difficult to have a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple strategem.²¹ So it should be in the instant petition for settlement of estate.

The argument is misplaced. Herein petitioners may not validly take refuge under the provisions of Rule 1, Section 2, of the Rules of Court to justify the invocation of Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines for the dismissal of the petition for settlement of the estate of the deceased Troadio Manalo inasmuch as the latter provision is clear enough. To wit:

Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035(underscoring supplied).²²

The above-quoted provision of the law is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. This is clear from the term 'suit' that it refers to an action by one person or persons against another or other in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right, whether at law or in equity. ²³ A civil action is thus an action filed in a court of justice, whereby a party sues another for the enforcement of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.²⁴ Besides, an excerpt form the Report of the Code Commission unmistakably reveals the intention of the Code Commission to make that legal provision applicable only to civil actions which are essentially adversarial and involve members of the same family, thus:

It is difficult to imagine a sadder and more tragic spectacle than a litigation between members of the same family. It is necessary that every effort should be made toward a compromise before litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the family. It is know that lawsuit between close relatives generates deeper bitterness than stranger.²⁵

It must be emphasized that the oppositors (herein petitioners) are not being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 for any cause of action as in fact no defendant was imploded therein. The Petition for issuance of letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 is a special proceeding and, as such, it is a remedy whereby the petitioners therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. ²⁶ the petitioners therein (private respondents herein) merely seek to establish the fat of death of their father and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of the said deceased so that they can validly exercise their right to participate in the settlement and liquidation of the estate of the decedent consistent with the limited and special jurisdiction of the probate court.

12.               In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Ismael Reyes, G.R. No. 139587, November 22, 2000 (345 SCRA 541)

The jurisdiction of the probate court merely relates to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of deceased persons, and the appointment and removal of administrators, executors, guardians and trustees.¹⁸ The question of ownership is as a rule, an extraneous matter which the Probate Court cannot resolve with finality.¹⁹ Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate proceeding, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title.²⁰

Settled is the rule that the Regional Trial Court acting as a probate court exercises but limited jurisdiction, thus it has no power to take cognizance of and determine the issue of title to property claimed by a third person adversely to the decedent, unless the claimant and all other parties having legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the question to the Probate Court for adjudgment, or the interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced.

13.               PCIB v. CA, G.R. No. 103149, November 15, 2000 (344 SCRA 596)

Petitioner claims that it was not given sufficient opportunity to file an answer in opposition to the application for preliminary injunction due to its belated receipt of the complaint-in-intervention. Such contention is untenable. Since it received a copy of the complaint-in-intervention on November 23, 1990, there was ample time to prepare an answer for the hearing set on December 4, 1990. Moreover, petitioner was duly notified of the hearing on the application for the writ. In fact, the hearing had been reset and appropriate notices given to the parties. The record further showed that petitioner’s counsel attended the hearing on December 4, 1990, but decided not to take part in the proceedings when his motion for extension of time to file responsive pleading was denied.

Thus, adequate opportunity was given to petitioner to oppose the application for the writ as well as to file its answer to the complaint-in-intervention. Petitioner may not presume that its motion for extension would be granted as a matter of course. The grant of an extension of time to file a responsive pleading is discretionary on the part of the court.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Rules of Court do not require that issues be joined before preliminary injunction may issue. Preliminary injunction may be granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, ordering a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.²¹ For as long as the requisites for its issuance are present in the case, such issuance is valid.

Petitioner’s contention that the writ of injunction issued by the trial court effectively adjudicated ownership of the mortgaged property in favor of respondent Blanquita Ang is misplaced. It is only upon expiration of the redemption period, without the judgment debtor having made use of his right of redemption, that ownership of the land sold in a foreclosure sale becomes consolidated in the purchaser.²² The probate court issued the writ to enjoin petitioner and other concerned parties from performing any act which would directly or indirectly enforce the effects of the extra-judicial foreclosure of decedent’s property caused by petitioner bank, in order to preserve the estate of the decedent. Consolidation of title would have the consequence of transferring ownership since the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale.²³ Therefore, at the time the writ was issued there was yet no issue regarding ownership because the period for redemption had not lapsed.

Nevertheless, the probate court may pass upon and determine the title or ownership of a property which may or may not be included in the estate proceedings, but such determination is provisional in character and is subject to final decision in a separate action to resolve title.²⁴ Thus, the allegations of Blanquita Ang that her signatures on the real estate mortgage documents were forged may be ventilated in a separate proceeding, requiring the presentation of clear and convincing evidence.

14.               De Leon v. CA, G.R. No. 128781, August 6, 2002 (386 SCRA 216)

A probate court, whether in a testate or intestate proceeding,²² can only pass upon questions of title provisionally.²³ The rationale therefor and the proper recourse of the aggrieved party are expounded in Jimenez v. Court of Appeals:

"The patent reason is the probate court’s limited jurisdiction and the principle that questions of title or ownership, which result in inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of the property, can only be settled in a separate action.

"All that the said court could do as regards said properties is determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is a dispute as to the ownership, then the opposing parties and the administrator have to resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate court cannot do so."²⁴

The Court held in Valero Vda. de Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals²⁶ that the order of exclusion (or inclusion) is not a final order; that it is interlocutory in the sense that it did not settle once and for all the title to the subject lots; that the prevailing rule is that for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto but such determination is not conclusive and is subject to the final decision in a separate action regarding ownership which may be instituted by the parties.

The elevation of the records of Special Proceedings No. C-1679 to the Court of Appeals for the purpose of petitioners’ appeal from the order removing the administratrix is unnecessary where a record on appeal is allowed under the Rules of Court. The court a quo loses jurisdiction over the subject of the appeal upon the approval of the record on appeal and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties; but retains jurisdiction over the remaining subject matter not covered by the appeal.³²

15.               Uy v. Capulong, A.M. No. RTJ-91-776, April 7, 1993 (221 SCRA 87)

Every judge should be cognizant of the basic principle that when questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be part of the estate of a deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be determined in the courts of administration proceedings. The trial court, acting as probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the trial court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction. The failure of respondent judge to apply this basic principle indicates a manifest disregard of well-known legal rules.

In cancelling the titles of complainants over their properties on mere motion of a party and without affording them due process, respondent Judge violated her sworn obligation to uphold the law and promote the administration of justice. It has been held that if the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

The foregoing transgressions of respondent Judge are further aggravated by her refusal to abide by the Decision of the Court of Appeals annulling her Order of 7 June 1989 which directed the cancellation of the titles of complainants. She was in fact specifically enjoined from proceeding against them, yet, despite this Decision, respondent Judge skill authorized the subsequent transfer or alienation to other persons of properties titled in the name of complainants to the detriment of the latter. This utter disrespect for the judgment of a higher court constitutes grave misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the public, the bench and the bar.

16.               Enderes v. CA, G.R. No. 128525, December 17, 1999 (321 SCRA 178)

Injunction may issue pendente lite only in cases of extreme urgency, where the right to the possession, during the pendency of the main case, of the property involved is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in favor of the complainant seeking the possession of the property pendente lite; where there was willful and unlawful invasion on plaintiff's right, over his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one. ⁹

Before an injunction can be issued, it is essential that the following requisites be present: (1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) the act against which injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right. ¹⁰

We agree with the findings of the SEC as affirmed by the Court of Appeals that petitioners failed not only to establish a threatened violation of a right but they also failed to discharge the burden of clearly showing the right to be protected. 11 On the mere contention that the shareholdings of private respondents belong to the estate of the late Dr. Ortañez which is still the subject of settlement before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, petitioners had not established their clear legal rights to obtain injunctive relief against private respondents. Injunction, whether preliminary or final, is not designed to protect contingent or future rights.

In support of their position, petitioners cited in their reply the issuance of an Order by the intestate court declaring that the shares of stock of Philinterlife belong to the estate. It is admitted that the special proceedings are still pending before the court and the estate had not been partitioned and distributed. Notwithstanding the proceedings being conducted by the intestate court, the petitioners' rights or interests over the estate or over the assailed shareholdings in the name of private respondents are still future and unsettled rights which cannot be protected by the writ of injunction. The rule is well settled that the jurisdiction of the regional trial court as a probate or intestate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of will of deceased persons but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. ¹⁵ 

The intestate court may pass upon the title to a certain property for the purpose of determining whether the same should or should not be included in the inventory but such determination is not conclusive and is subject to final decision in a separate action regarding ownership which may be constituted by the parties. ¹⁶ The court in charge of the intestate proceedings cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties. ¹⁷ Therefore, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of violation of an actually existing right of petitioners over the shareholdings presently in the possession of private respondents is no ground for an injunction being a mere damnum absque injuria. ¹⁸

Contrary to the contentions of petitioners, the SEC found that private respondents are bona fide owners of shares of stock in Philinterlife constituting the majority thereof or 94% of the outstanding capital stock of the company. Records show that they have been stockholders of Philinterlife since 1983 up to the present. It was only in 1994 that petitioners sought the annulment of the shareholdings of private respondents before the SEC. The grant of the writ of injunction against private respondents by restraining them from exercising their rights as stockholders would in effect dispose of the main case without a trial. The SEC acted correctly in denying the issuance of the writ until the merits of the case can be heard. Further, it is a basic procedural postulate that a preliminary injunction is not proper where its purpose is to take the property out of control or possession of one party and transfer the same to the hands of another who did not have such control at the inception of the case ²⁰ and whose title has not been clearly established by law. ²¹

17.               Cortes v. CA, G.R. No. 117417, September 21, 2000 (340 SCRA 715)

The long standing rule is that probate courts, or those in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties.⁶ Stated otherwise, "claims for title to, or right of possession of, personal or real property, made by the heirs themselves, by title adverse to that of the deceased, or made by third persons, cannot be entertained by the (probate) court."⁷

In the present case, however, private respondent Menandro A. Reselva, who refused to vacate the house and lot being eyed as part of the estate of the late Teodoro T. Reselva, cannot be considered an "outside party" for he is one of the three compulsory heirs of the former. As such, he is very much involved in the settlement of Teodoro's estate.⁸ By way of exception to the above-mentioned rule, "when the parties are all heirs of the decedent, it is optional upon them to submit to the probate court the question of title to property."⁹ Here, the probate court is competent to decide the question of ownership. More so, when the opposing parties belong to the poor stratum of society and a separate action would be most expensive and inexpedient.

In the same way, when the controversy is whether the property in issue belongs to the conjugal partnership or exclusively to the decedent, the same is properly within the jurisdiction of the probate court, which necessarily has to liquidate the conjugal partnership in order to determine the estate of the decedent which is to be distributed among the heirs.¹²

18.               Solivio v. CA, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990 (182 SCRA 119)

After a careful review of the records, we find merit in the petitioner's contention that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, lacked jurisdiction to entertain Concordia Villanueva's action for partition and recovery of her share of the estate of Esteban Javellana, Jr. while the probate proceedings (Spl, Proc. No. 2540) for the settlement of said estate are still pending in Branch 23 of the same court, there being as yet no orders for the submission and approval of the administratix's inventory and accounting, distributing the residue of the estate to the heir, and terminating the proceedings (p. 31, Record).

In the interest of orderly procedure and to avoid confusing and conflicting dispositions of a decedent's estate, a court should not interfere with probate proceedings pending in a co-equal court. Thus, did we rule in Guilas v. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, L-26695, January 31, 1972, 43 SCRA 111, 117, where a daughter filed a separate action to annul a project of partition executed between her and her father in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of her mother:

The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. The finality of the approval of the project of partition by itself alone does not terminate the probate proceeding (Timbol v. Cano, 1 SCRA 1271, 1276, L-15445, April 29, 1961; Siguiong v. Tecson, 89 Phil. pp. 28, 30). As long as the order of the distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated Siguiong v. Tecson, supra); because a judicial partition is not final and conclusive and does not prevent the heirs from bringing an action to obtain his share, provided the prescriptive period therefore has not elapsed (Mari v. Bonilia, 83 Phil. 137). The better practice, however, for the heir who has not received his share, is to demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate or administration proceedings, or for reopening of the probate or administrative proceedings if it had already been closed, and not through an independent action, which would be tried by another court or Judge which may thus reverse a decision or order of the probate or intestate court already final and executed and re-shuffle properties long ago distributed and disposed of. (Ramos v. Ortuzar, 89 Phil. 730, 741-742; Timbol v. Cano, supra; Jingco v. Daluz, L-5107, April 24, 1953, 92 Phil. 1082; Roman Catholic v. Agustines, L-14710, March 29, 1960, 107 Phil. 455, 460-461; Emphasis supplied)

The probate proceedings are proceedings in rem. Notice of the time and place of hearing of the petition is required to be published (Sec. 3, Rule 76 in relation to Sec. 3, Rule 79, Rules of Court). Notice of the hearing of Celedonia's original petition was published in the "Visayan Tribune" on April 25, May 2 and 9, 1977 (Exh 4, p. 197, Record). Similarly, notice of the hearing of her amended petition of May 26, 1977 for the settlement of the estate was, by order of the court, published in "Bagong Kasanag" (New Light) issues of May 27, June 3 and 10, 1977 (pp. 182-305, Record). The publication of the notice of the proceedings was constructive notice to the whole world. Concordia was not deprived of her right to intervene in the proceedings for she had actual, as well as constructive notice of the same.

Celedonia's allegation in her petition that she was the sole heir of Esteban within the third degree on his mother's side was not false. Moreover, it was made in good faith and in the honest belief that because the properties of Esteban had come from his mother, not his father, she, as Esteban's nearest surviving relative on his mother's side, is the rightful heir to them. It would have been self-defeating and inconsistent with her claim of sole heirship if she stated in her petition that Concordia was her co-heir. Her omission to so state did not constitute extrinsic fraud.

Failure to disclose to the adversary, or to the court, matters which would defeat one's own claim or defense is not such extrinsic fraud as will justify or require vacation of the judgment. (49 C.J.S. 489, citing Young v. Young, 2 SE 2d 622; First National Bank & Trust Co. of King City v. Bowman, 15 SW 2d 842; Price v. Smith, 109 SW 2d 1144, 1149)

Clearly, the property of the deceased, Esteban Javellana, Jr., is not reservable property, for Esteban, Jr. was not an ascendant, but the descendant of his mother, Salustia Solivio, from whom he inherited the properties in question. Therefore, he did not hold his inheritance subject to a reservation in favor of his aunt, Celedonia Solivio, who is his relative within the third degree on his mother's side. The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or 9 brother or sister. It does not apply to property inherited by a descendant from his ascendant, the reverse of the situation covered by Article 891.

However, inasmuch as Concordia had agreed to deliver the estate of the deceased to the foundation in honor of his mother, Salustia Solivio Vda. de Javellana (from whom the estate came), an agreement which she ratified and confirmed in her "Motion to Reopen and/or Reconsider Order dated April 3, 1978" which she filed in Spl. Proceeding No. 2540:

4. That ... prior to the filing of the petition they (petitioner Celedonia Solivio and movant Concordia Javellana) have agreed to make the estate of the decedent a foundation, besides they have closely known each other due to their filiation to the decedent and they have been visiting each other's house which are not far away for (sic) each other. (p. 234, Record; Emphasis supplied)

she is bound by that agreement. It is true that by that agreement, she did not waive her inheritance in favor of Celedonia, but she did agree to place all of Esteban's estate in the "Salustia Solivio Vda. de Javellana Foundation" which Esteban, Jr., during his lifetime, planned to set up to honor his mother and to finance the education of indigent but deserving students as well.

Her admission may not be taken lightly as the lower court did. Being a judicial admission, it is conclusive and no evidence need be presented to prove the agreement (Cunanan v. Amparo, 80 Phil. 227; Granada v. Philippine National Bank, L-20745, Sept. 2, 1966, 18 SCRA 1; Sta. Ana v. Maliwat, L-23023, Aug. 31, 1968, 24 SCRA 1018; People v. Encipido, G.R.70091, Dec. 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 478; and Rodillas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 58652, May 20, 1988, 161 SCRA 347).

19.               Vita v. Montano, G.R. No. L-50553 February 19, 1991 (194 SCRA 180)

We are in conformity with the finding of the trial court that the three (3) parcels of land mentioned in the complaint were paraphernal properties of Isidra Montanano, being supported by documentary and testimonial evidence (p. 48, Record on Appeal):

. . . plaintiff claims that in accordance with the inventory prepared by Edilberto Vita of his properties before his death (Exhs. "O", "O-1", "O-1-A", "O-1-B", and "O-1-C"), the parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 4 (old) was a paraphernal property of his wife Isidra Montanano while the parcels of land covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 72 (old) and 73 were conjugal properties of the spouses Edilberto Vita and Isidra Montanano as they were donated to the latter by Francisca Asilo during their marriage. It is the contention of the plaintiff that upon the death of Isidra Montanano, her husband Edilberto Vita acquired ownership of these properties.

This contention of the plaintiff in effect corroborates the claim of the defendants and intervenors that an the three (3) parcels of land, subject-matter of the complaint, including all the parcels of land being claimed by them in the intervenor's counterclaim, were all paraphernal properties of Isidra Montanano. The two (2) parcels of land supposedly received as donation by Isidra Montanano during her marriage with Edilberto Vita should be classified as her paraphernal properties, it being acquired by her through lucrative title (Art. 148, Civil Code). On the other hand, plaintiffs testimony that the third parcel of land covered in the complaint was inherited by Edilberto Vita from Isidra Montanano is an admission that the said property was the paraphernal property of the latter.

The defendants and intervenors claim that the above-stated three (3) parcels of land and the properties covered in their counterclaim were donated to them by Isidra Montanano by virtue of two (2) deeds of donation she executed on November 22, 1938 and December 20, 1940. They presented testimonial and documentary evidence to prove that Isidra Montanano acquired all these parcels of land, either by inheritance or donation, from her father Domingo Montanano, her aunt Francisca Asilo and her uncle Juan Asilo. Aside from this, the tax declarations covering the properties involved in the complaint and counterclaim are mostly in the name of Isidra Montanano, except one each in the name of her father Domingo Montanano, her aunt Francisca Asilo and her nephew Jose Samonte. The court is convinced, therefore, that all the properties involved in this litigation were the paraphernal properties of the deceased Isidra Montanano.

Whatever merit there may be in plaintiff-appellant's claim that upon the death of Isidra Montanano, the ownership of these parcels of land (except with respect to the parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 1253 (4, old) which was validly donated to defendants-appellants and intervenors-appellants by Isidra Montanano, as We shall discuss later) are vested upon Edilberto Vita by operation of law, subject only to the right of her nephew and nieces, liquidation of the conjugal partnership of Isidra Montanano and Edilberto Vita must be undertaken prior to the adjudication of properties to the heirs (Vicente J. Francisco,The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, 1970 Edition, p. 619). In this connection, contrary to the trial court's ruling, it is not necessary to file a separate proceeding in court for the proper disposition of the estate of Isidra Montanano. Under Rule 73, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, if both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either. In the present case, therefore, the conjugal partnership of Isidra Montanano and Edilberto Vita should be liquidated in the testate proceedings of the latter.

It is explicit in Article 725 * of the Civil Code that acceptance is necessary in a donation. This applies to all kinds of donation because the law does not make any distinction. The rationale behind the requirement of acceptance is that nobody is obliged to receive a benefit against his will (Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Volume II, 1972 Edition, p. 521). We uphold the trial court that (p. 50, Record on Appeal):

. . . notwithstanding the fact that from the secondary evidence presented, the said deed of donation mortis causa of November 22, 1938 seems to have been legally and validly executed, it cannot be given force and effect as the acceptance thereof by the donees is void and illegal in as much (sic) as they were made at the time of the execution of the document, not after the death of the donor Isidra Montanano. A donation mortis causa takes effect only after the death of the donor, consequently it is only after the latter's death that its acceptance maybe made.

The quoted provision in the second deed of donation should be understood in its entirety. Thus, based on the first part of the paragraph which states " '[n]a bagaman at sa kasulatang ito ay lubusan ng ibinibigay at ipinagkakaloob sa bawat isa . . . na iyon ay patuluyan nang ngayo'y iginagawad sa kanila ng walang pasubali, na magagawa na nila ang buong karapatan ngayon bilang tunay na may-ari . . . " (Emphasis supplied), supra, it was obviously the intention of Isidra Montanano to grant a donation inter vivos to defendants-appellants and intervenors-appellants. Although the rest of the paragraph states "'gayon man, ay kami pa ring mag-asawa ang mananatili sa pag-mamayari, pakikinabang at pamomosision, –– na kani-kaniyang pag-aaring dito'y ipinagkakaloob, sa buong panahon na ang bawat isa sa amin mag-asawa'y nabubuhay, at kung kailan bawian kami ng hiram na buhay, ay saka at saka pa lamang maaring matamo nila ang ganap na pagmamayari at pakikinabang sa mga pag-aaring iyan . . . supra," We have adjudged in the case of Heirs of Juan Bonsato, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 95 Phil. 481, 488:

It is true that the last paragraph in each donation contains the phrase "that after the death of the donor the aforesaid donation shall become effective." . . . However, said expression must be construed together with the rest of the paragraph, and thus taken, its meaning clearly appears to be that after the donor's death, the donation will take effect so as to make the donees the absolute owners of the donated property, free from all liens and encumbrances; for it must be remembered that the donor reserved for himself a share of the fruits of the land donated. Such reservation constituted a charge or encumbrance that would disappear upon the donor's death, when full title would become vested in the donees.

As We have ruled in Concepcion, et al. v. Concepcion, 91 Phil. 823, 830:

. . . even if he (donor) says it (the donation) is to take effect after his death, when from the body of the instrument or donation it is to be gathered that the main consideration of the donation is not the death of the donor but rather services rendered to him by the donee or his affection for the latter, then the donation should be considered as inter vivos, . . . and the condition that the donation is to take effect only after the death of the donor should be interpreted as meaning that the possession and enjoyment of the its of the property donated should take place only after donor's death.

20.               Eastern Shipping v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-60101, August 31, 1983 (124 SCRA 425)

There is thus enough evidence to show the circumstances attending the loss and disappearance of the M/V Eastern Minicon and its crew. The foregoing facts, quite logically. are sufficient to lead Us to a moral certainty that the vessel had sunk and that the persons aboard had perished with it. upon this premise, the rule on presumption of death under Article 391 (1) of the Civil Code must yield to the rule of preponderance of evidence. As this Court said in Joaquin vs. Navarro ⁴ "Where there are facts, known or knowable, from which a rational conclusion can be made, the presumption does not step in, and the rule of preponderance of evidence controls."

If in the foregoing criminal cases, where the proof required for conviction must be beyond reasonable doubt, the rule of presumption was not applied and the fact of death was deemed established, with more reason is this Court justified in entering a finding of death. Indeed, We cannot permit Article 391 to override, or be substituted for, the facts established in this case which logically indicate to a moral certainty that Capt. Lucero died shortly after he had sent his last radio message at 9:50 p.m. on February 16, 1980.

Credit to Lawphil.