RAMON S. CHING v. JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, GR No. 192828,
2011-11-28
Facts:
Sometime between November 25, 2002 and December 3, 2002, the 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 and his successors-in-interest.
In the Complaint, the respondents alleged the following as
causes of action:
First Cause of Action. Respondents averred that Ramon
misrepresented himself as Antonio's and Lucina's son when in truth and in fact,
he was adopted and his birth certificate was merely simulated.
On July 18, 1996, Antonio died of a stab wound. Police
investigators identified Ramon as the prime suspect and he now stands as the
lone accused in a criminal case for murder filed against him. Warrants of
arrest issued against him have remained unserved as he is at large. From the
foregoing circumstances and upon the authority of Article 919 of the New Civil
Code, the respondents concluded that Ramon can be legally disinherited, hence,
prohibited from receiving any share from the estate of Antonio.
Second Cause of Action. Ramon misrepresented that there were
only six real estate properties left by Antonio. The respondents alleged that
Ramon had illegally transferred to his name the titles to the said properties.
Further, there are two other parcels of land, cash and jewelries, plus
properties in Hongkong, which were in Ramon's possession.
Third Cause of Action. Mercedes, being of low educational
attainment, was sweet-talked by Ramon into surrendering to him a Global Bank
Certificate of Time Deposit of
P4,000,000.00 in the name of Antonio, and the certificates of title
covering two condominium units in Binondo which were purchased by Antonio using
his own money but which were registered in Ramon's name. Ramon also
fraudulently misrepresented to Joseph, Jaime and Mercedes that they will promptly
receive their complete shares, exclusive of the stocks in Po Wing Properties,
Inc., from the estate of Antonio. Exerting undue influence, Ramon had convinced
them to execute an Agreement and a Waiver on August 20, 1996. The terms and
conditions stipulated in the Agreement and Waiver, specifically, on the payment
by Ramon to Joseph, Jaime and Mercedes of the amount of P22,000,000.00, were
not complied with. Further, Lucina was not informed of the execution of the
said instruments and had not received any amount from Ramon. Hence, the
instruments are null and void.
Fourth Cause of Action. Antonio's 40,000 shares in Po Wing,
which constitute 60% of the latter's total capital stock, were illegally
transferred by Ramon to his own name through a forged document of sale executed
after Antonio died.
Fifth Cause of Action. On October 29, 1996, Ramon executed
an Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate adjudicating solely to
himself Antonio's entire estate to the prejudice of the respondents.
Sixth Cause of Action. Ramon sold Antonio's two parcels of
land in Navotas to co-defendant Asia Atlantic Business Ventures, Inc. Another
parcel of land, which was part of Antonio's estate, was sold by Ramon to
co-defendant Elena Tiu Del Pilar at an unreasonably low price.
By reason of Ramon's lack of authority to dispose of any
part of Antonio's estate, the conveyances are null and void ab initio.
The petitioners filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss
alleging forum shopping, litis pendentia, res judicata and the respondents as
not being the real parties in interest.
On July 30, 2004, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order denying
the petitioners' Motion to Dismiss.
The respondents filed an Amended Complaint dated April 7,
2005 impleading Metrobank as the successor-in-interest of co-defendant Global
Bank. The Amended Complaint also added a seventh cause of action relative to the
existence of a Certificate of Premium Plus Acquisition (CPPA) in the amount of
P4,000,000.00 originally issued by PhilBank to Antonio. The respondents prayed
that they be declared as the rightful owners of the CPPA 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.
Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE MOTION TO
DISMISS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ON THE ALLEGED GROUND OF THE RTC'S LACK OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Ruling:
Although the respondents' Complaint and Amended Complaint
sought, among others, the disinheritance of Ramon and the release in favor of
the respondents of the CPPA now under Metrobank's custody, Civil Case No. 02-105251
remains to be an ordinary civil action, and not a special proceeding pertaining
to a settlement court.
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.
Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can be effected
only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. This
Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that 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.
Comments
Post a Comment