CATALINA BALAIS-MABANAG v. THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, CONCEPTION D. ALCARAZ AND RAMONA ALCARAZG.R. No. 153142, March 29, 2010

Facts: The Coronel brothers executed a document entitled Receipt of Down payment in favor of Ramona Alcaraz upon the receiving P50,000.00 as a down payment for the sale of their inherited house and lot in Quezon City. In the agreement with Ramona, they will execute a deed of absolute sale immediately upon the transfer of the TCT to the name of the brothers Coronel because the same was named to their father. On Feb.18, 1985, they sold the same property to petitioner herein for a higher contract price than that of Ramona. For this reason, Coronel rescinded the first agreement with Ramona by depositing to her the down payment of P50, 000.00. Consequently, respondents filed a case for specific performance and caused the annotation of lis pendens over the property. On June 5, 1985, TCT 351382 was issued in the name of petitioner herein. RTC ruled in favor of respondents herein ordering the cancellation of the TCT in the name of petitioner. Hence, this petition.Issue:Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the registration by the Registry of Deeds of the DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE despite the lack of indication of citizenship of the buyer.Ruling:The High Court ruled that it should be pointed out that the petitioner was not the proper party to challenge Ramonas qualification to acquire land. Only the Government through the Solicitor General has the personality to file the case challenging the capacity of person to acquire or own land based on non-citizenship. The limitation is based on the fact that the violation is committed against the State and not against individual. And that in the event that the transferee is adjudged to be not a Filipino citizen, the affected property reverts to the State, not to the previous owner or individual. It will not inure to the benefit of the petitioner, instead the subject property will be escheated in favor of the State according to BP Blg. 185. ________________________________________________________________________________________REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PASAY CITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER 3RD DIVISION) AND AMADA H. SOLANO, assisted by her husband ROMEO SOLANO, respondents.G.R. No. 143483 | 2002-01-31FACTS:1.Amada Solano is the helper of Elizabeth Hankins for 30 years2.Amada was her faithful girl Friday and constant companion since no relative is available to tend her needs3.In recognition, Ms. Hankins executed 2 deeds of donation involving 2 parcels of land in favor of Amada. She allegedly misplaced the deeds and can't be found4.During the absence of the deed of donation, Republic filed a petition for escheat of the estate of Hankins; Romeo Solano (spouse of Amada) filed for intervention but was denied by court because "they miserably failed to show valid claim or right to the properties in question."5.It was established that there were no known heirs and persons entitled to the properties, the LC escheated the estate in favor of Republic of the Philippines6.Amada claimed she accidentally found the deeds of donation. She filed for petition before CA for the annulment of the LC's decision escheating the property in favor of the Republic7.CA annulled LC's decision

ISSUE:Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to declare a parcel of land escheated in favor of the stateHELD: YESWe rule for the petitioner. Escheat is a proceeding, unlike that of succession or assignment, whereby the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claims the real or personal property of a person who dies intestate leaving no heir. In the absence of a lawful owner, a property is claimed by the state to forestall an open "invitation to self-service by the first comers."[5] Since escheat is one of the incidents of sovereignty, the state may, and usually does, prescribe the conditions and limits the time within which a claim to such property may be made. The procedure by which the escheated property may be recovered is generally prescribed by statue, and a time limit is imposed within which such action must be brought.In this jurisdiction, a claimant to an escheated property must file his claim "within five (5) years from the date of such judgment, such person shall have possession of and title to the same, or if sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him for the proceeds, after deducting the estate; but a claim not made shall be barred forever."[6] The 5-year period is not a device capriciously conjured by the state to defraud any claimant; on the contrary, it is decidedly prescribed to encourage would-be claimants to be punctilious in asserting their claims, otherwise they may lose them forever in a final judgment.Incidentally, the question may be asked: Does herein private respondent, not being an heir but allegedly a donee, have the personality to be a claimant within the purview of Sec. 4, Rule 91, of the Revised Rules of Court? In this regard, we agree with the Solicitor General that the case ofMunicipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna v. Colegio de San Jose, Inc.,[7] is applicable at least insofar as it concerns the Court's discussion on who is an "interested party" in an escheat proceeding -In a special proceeding for escheat under sections 750 and 751 the petitioner is not the sole and exclusive interested party.Any person alleging to have a direct right or interest in the property sought to be escheated is likewise an interested party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat. In the present case, the Colegio de San Jose, Inc. and Carlos Young appeared alleging to have a material interest in the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan; the former because it claims to be the exclusive owner of the hacienda, and the latter because he claims to be the lessee thereof under a contract legally entered with the former (underscoring supplied).In the instant petition, the escheat judgment was handed down by the lower court as early as 27 June 1989 but it was only on 28 January 1997, more or less seven (7) years after, when private respondent decided to contest the escheat judgment in the guise of a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals. Obviously, private respondent's belated assertion of her right over the escheated properties militates against recovery.A judgment in escheat proceedings when rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive against all persons with actual or constructive notice, but not against those who are not parties or privies thereto. As held inHamilton v. Brown,[8] "a judgment of escheat was held conclusive upon persons notified by advertisement to all persons interested. Absolute lack on the part of petitioners of any dishonest intent to deprive the appellee of any right, or in any way injure him, constitutes due process of law, proper notice having been observed." With the lapse of the 5-year period therefore, private respondent has irretrievably lost her right to claim and the supposed "discovery of the deeds of donation" is not enough justification to nullify the escheat judgment which has long attained finality.In the mind of this Court the subject properties were owned by the decedent during the time that the escheat proceedings were being conducted and the lower court was not divested of its jurisdiction to escheat them in favor of Pasay City notwithstanding an allegation that they had been previously donated. We recall that a motion for intervention was earlier denied by the escheat court for failure to show "valid claim or right to the properties in question."[9] Where a person comes into an escheat proceeding as a claimant, the burden is on such intervenor to establish his title to the property and his right to intervene.A fortiori, the certificates of title covering the subject properties were in the name of the decedent indicating that no transfer of ownership involving the disputed properties was ever made by the deceased during her lifetime. In the absence therefore of any clear and convincing proof showing that the subject lands had been conveyed by Hankins to private respondent Solano, the same still remained, at least before the escheat, part of the estate of the decedent and the lower court was right not to assume otherwise. The Court of Appeals therefore cannot perfunctorily presuppose that the subject properties were no longer part of the decedent's estate at the time the lower court handed down its decision on the strength of a belated allegation that the same had previously been disposed of by the owner. It is settled that courts decide only after a close scrutiny of every piece of evidence and analyze each case with deliberate precision and unadulterated thoroughness, the judgment not being diluted by speculations, conjectures and unsubstantiated assertions.CECILIO C. HERNANDEZ, MA. VICTORIA C. HERNANDEZ-SAGUN, TERESA C. HERNANDEZ-VILLA ABRILLE and NATIVIDADCRUZ-HERNANDEZ vs. JOVITA SAN JUAN-SANTOSG.R. No. 166470 and G.R. No. 169217 August 7, 2009

FACTS: Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez (or Lulu) was born on February 14, 1947 to the spouses Felix Hernandez and Maria San Juan Hernandez. Unfortunately, the latter died due to complications during childbirth. After Maria's death, Felix left Lulu in the care of her maternal uncle, Sotero C. San Juan. On December 16, 1951, Felix married Natividad Cruz. The union produced three children, herein petitioners. Meanwhile, as the only child of Maria and the sole testate heir of Sotero, Lulu inherited valuable real properties from the San Juan family. In 1968, upon reaching the age of majority, Lulu was given full control of her estate. Nevertheless, because Lulu did not even finish her elementary education, Felix continued to exercise actual administration of Lulus properties. Upon Felix's death in 1993, petitioners took over the task of administering Lulu's properties. During the period of their informal administration (from 1968 until 1993), Felix and petitioners undertook various projects involving Lulus real properties. In 1974, Felix allegedly purchased one of Lulus properties for an undisclosed amount to develop the Marilou Subdivision. Thus, Lulu signed a special power of attorney (SPA) believing that she was authorizing Ma. Victoria to appear in court on her behalf when she was in fact unknowingly authorizing her half-sister to sell the said property to the Manila Electric Company for P18,206,400. In September 1998, Lulu sought the assistance of her maternal first cousin, respondent Jovita San Juan-Santos, after learning that petitioners had been dissipating her estate. She confided to Jovita that she was made to live in the basement of petitioners home and was receiving a measly daily allowance of P400 for her food and medication.Respondent was appalled as Lulu was severely overweight, unkempt and smelled of urine. She later found out that Lulu was occupying a cramped room lit by a single fluorescent lamp without running water. Due to Lulu's poor hygiene, respondent brought her to several physicians for medical examination. Lulu was found to be afflicted with tuberculosis, rheumatism and diabetes from which she was suffering several complications.On October 2, 1998, respondent filed a petition for guardianship in the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76. She alleged that Lulu was incapable of taking care of herself and managing her estate because she was of weak mind. Subsequently, petitioners moved to intervene in the proceedings to oppose the same. Cecilio, Teresa and Ma. Victoria, for their part, claimed that the issue of Lulus competency had been settled in 1968 (upon her emancipation) when the court ordered her legal guardian and maternal uncle, Ciriaco San Juan, to deliver the properties for her to manage. They likewise asserted that Lulu was literate and, for that reason, aware of the consequences of executing an SPA. During the hearing, Lulu was presented and asked to testify on her genealogy and experiences with the San Juan and Hernandez families. Lulu identified and described her parents, stepmother, half-siblings and maternal relatives. Medical specialists testified to explain the results of Lulus examinations which revealed the alarming state of her health. Furthermore, they unanimously opined that in view of Lulus intelligence level (which was below average) and fragile mental state, she would not be able to care for herself and self-administer her medications.ISSUE: Whether or not Lulu is an incompetent and the appointment of a judicial guardian over her person and property is necessary.HELD: YES. Under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court, persons who, though of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other similar causes are incapable of taking care of themselves and their property without outside aid, are considered as incompetents who may properly be placed under guardianship. The RTC and the CA both found that Lulu was incapable of taking care of herself and her properties without outside aid due to her ailments and weak mind. Thus, since determining whether or not Lulu is in fact an incompetent would require a reexamination of the evidence presented in the courts a quo, it undoubtedly involves questions of fact. Petitioners are furthermore ordered to render to respondent, Lulus legal guardian, an accurate and faithful accounting of all the properties and funds they unlawfully appropriated for themselves from the estate of Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez, within thirty (30) days from receipt of this decision. If warranted, the proper complaints should also be filed against them for any criminal liability in connection with the dissipation of Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandezs estate and her unlawful abduction from the custody of her legal guardian.

Jose Uy vs. Court of Appeals and Teodoro JardelezaGR No. 109557. November 29, 2000

Facts:Dr. Jardeleza suffered a stroke which left him comatose and depriving him of his mental and physical capability to act. Upon learning that the real property he owned is about to be sold, Teodoro filed a petition for the issuance of the letter of guardianship of his father. In the petition, he prayed for the issuance of the letters of guardianship in favor of his mother and petitioner, Gilda.Days later, Gilda filed a petition for the declaration of incapacity of Dr. Jardeleza, administration of conjugal properties, and authority of sell the same. In the said petition, she prayed for such reliefs because of the increasing hospital bills due to the fact that Dr. Jardeleza is confined in an intensive care unit (ICU).Upon the finding of the petition to be in form, the RTC issued a notice for hearing, which happened few days after. On the same date of the hearing, the RTC, upon hearing the witnesses presented by Gilda, granted such petition. Teodoro filed an Opposition contending that he was unaware that the case was already decided. He also filed a Motion for Reconsideration contending that the proper remedy in the case is not the petition filed by his mother, but the petition for guardianship proceedings. As such, the case cannot be heard under the rules of summary proceedings as contemplated in Article 253 of the Family Code. He also noted that the provisions on summary proceedings, found in Chapter 2 of the Family Code, comes under the heading on Separation in Fact Between Husband and Wife which contemplates of a situation where both spouses are of disposing mind.Thus, he argued that were one spouse is comatose without motor and mental faculties, the said provisions cannot be made to apply.Issue: Whether the provision of Article 124 of the Family Code applies in this case when one of the spose is incapacitated to give his consent?Held:No. Article 124 of the Family Code provides as follows:ART. 124.The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly.In case of disagreement, the husbands decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for a proper remedy which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration.These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse.In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void.However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. (165a).In regular manner, the rules on summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code govern the proceedings under Article 124 of the Family Code.The situation contemplated is one where the spouse is absent, or separated in fact or has abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be obtained. Such rules do not apply to cases where the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give consent. In this case, the trial court found that the subject spouse "is an incompetent" who was in comatose or semi-comatose condition, a victim of stroke, cerebrovascular accident, without motor and mental faculties, and with a diagnosis of brain stem infarct.In such case, the proper remedy is a judicial guardianship proceedings under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court.Even assuming that the rules of summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code may apply to the wife's administration of the conjugal property, the law provides that the wife who assumes sole powers of administration has the same powers and duties as a guardian under the Rules of Court.Consequently, a spouse whodesirestosell real property as such administrator of the conjugal property must observe the procedure for the sale of the wards estate required of judicial guardians under Rule 95, 1964 Revised Rules of Court, not the summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code.In the case at bar, the trial court did not comply with the procedure under the Revised Rules of Court. Indeed, the trial court did not even observe the requirements of the summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code. Thus, the trial court did not serve notice of the petition to the incapacitated spouse; it did not require him to show cause why the petition should not be granted.NELSON CABALES and RITO CABALES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JESUS FELIANO and ANUNCIANO FELIANOG.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007Puno, C.J.

FACTS:Sometime in 1964, Rurfino Cabales died leaving behind a parcel of land in Southern Leyte to his wife, Saturnina and six children, namely, Bonifacio, Francisco, Alberto, Albino, Lenora, and Rito. On 1971, the brothers and co-owners Bonifacio, Alberto and Albino sold the property to Dr. Corrompido with a right to repurchase within eight (8) years. On 1972, prior to the redemption of the property, Alberto died leaving behind his wife and son, Nelson, herein petitioner.Sometime later and within the redemption period, the said brothers and their mother, in lieu of Alberto, tendered their payment to Dr. Corrompido. Subsequently, Saturnina, and her four children, Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco and Leonora sold the said land to Spouses Feliano. It was provided in the deed of sale that the shares of Nelson and Rito, being minor at the time of the sale, will be held in trust by the vendee and will paid upon them reaching the age of 21. In 1986, Rito received the sum of 1,143 pesos from the Spouses Feliano representing his share from the proceeds of the sale of the property. It was only in 1988, that Nelson learned of the sale from his uncle, Rito. He signified his intention to redeem the property in 1993 but it was only in 1995 that he filed a complaint for redemption against the Spouses Feliano. The respondent Spouses averred that the petitioners are estopped from denying the sale since: (1) Rito already received his share; and (2) Nelson, failed to tender the total amount of the redemption price. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favour of Spouses Feliano on the ground that Nelson was no longer entitled to the property since, his right was subrogated by Saturnina upon the death of his father, Alberto. It also alleged that Rito had no more right to redeem since Saturnina, being his legal guardian at the time of the sale was properly vested with the right to alienate the same.The Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court stating that the sale made by Saturnina in behalf of Rito and Nelson were unenforceable. ISSUE:Whether or not the sale made by a legal guardian (Saturnina) in behalf of the minors were binding upon them.HELD:With regard to the share of Rito, the contract of sale was valid. Under Section 1, Rule 96 A guardian shall have the care and custody of the person of his ward, and the management of his estate, or the management of the estate only. x x x Indeed, the legal guardian only has the plenary power of administration of the minors property. It does not include the power of alienation which needs judicial authority. Thus, when Saturnina, as legal guardian of petitioner Rito, sold the latters pro indiviso share in subject land, she did not have the legal authority to do so. Accordingly, the contract as to the share of Rito was unenforceable. However, when he received the proceeds of the sale, he effectively ratified it. This act of ratification rendered the sale valid and binding as to him.With respect to petitioner Nelson, the contract of sale was void. He was a minor at the time of the sale. Saturnina or any and all the other co-owners were not his legal guardians; rather it was his mother who if duly authorized by the courts, could validly sell his share in the property. Consequently, petitioner Nelson retained ownership over their undivided share in the said property. However, Nelson can no longer redeem the property since the thirty day redemption period has expired and thus he remains as co-owner of the property with the Spouses Feliano.