Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > July 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 84250 July 20, 1992 - DAYA MARIA TOL-NOQUERA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 84250. July 20, 1992.]

DAYA MARIA TOL-NOQUERA, Petitioner, v. HON. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, Presiding Judge, Branch XVI, Regional Trial Court, 8th Judicial Region, Naval, Leyte, and DIOSDADO TOL, Respondents.

Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. for Petitioner.

Jun N. Valerio for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; ACTIONS; REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO ONE UNJUSTLY DEPRIVED OF HIS PROPERTY; CASE AT BAR. — The issue of whether or not the property titled to Diosdado Tol is really owned by him should be resolved in another proceeding. The right of Daya Maria Tol to be appointed administratrix cannot be denied outright by reason alone of such issue. Even if it be assumed that the title obtained by Diosdado Tol is already indefeasible because of the lapse of the one-year period for attacking it on the ground of fraud, there are still other remedies available to one who is unjustly deprived of his property. One of these is a claim for reconveyance, another a complaint for damages. The petitioner can avail herself of such remedies if she is appointed administratrix of the estate of the absentee.

2. ID.; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; ABSENTEES; PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF ABSENCE AND PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF ABSENTEE; COMBINED AND ADJUDICATED IN SAME PROCEEDING. — It is not necessary that a declaration of absence be made in a proceeding separate from and prior to a petition for administration. This was the ruling in Reyes v. Alejandro, reiterating Pejer v. Martinez. In the latter case, the court declared that the petition to declare the husband an absentee and the petition to place the management of the conjugal properties in the hands of the wife could be combined and adjudicated in the same proceeding.

3. CIVIL LAW; ABSENCE; PROVISIONAL MEASURES IN CASE OF ABSENCE; DECLARATION OF ABSENCE; RULES INTENDED TO PROTECT INTERESTS AND PROPERTY OF ABSENTEE AND NOT THOSE OF ADMINISTRATOR; CASE AT BAR. — The purpose of the cited rules is the protection of the interests and property of the absentee, not of the administrator. Thus, the question of whether the administrator may inherit the property to be administered is not controlling. What is material is whether she is one of those allowed by law to seek the declaration of absence of Remigio Tol and whether she is competent to be appointed as administratrix of his estate.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


Questioned in this action is the dismissal of a petition filed by Daya Maria Tol-Noquera for appointment as administratrix of the property of the absentee Remigio Tol.

In Special Proceedings No. P-056, which was filed in December 1986, Daya Maria-Tol alleged that she was the acknowledged natural child of Remigio Tol, who had been missing since 1984. She claimed that a certain Diosdado Tol had fraudulently secured a free patent over Remigio’s property and had obtained title thereto in his name. She was seeking the administration of the absentee’s estate in order that she could recover the said property.

The petition was opposed by Diosdado Tol, who argued that Daya Maria Tol was not an acknowledged natural child of the absentee and that the property sought to be administered was covered by an original certificate of title issued in his name.

On March 31, 1987, the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was a collateral attack on a Torrens title. The court also declared in effect that it was useless to appoint an administrator in view of the claim of a third person that he was the owner of the absentee’s property.

The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied, she filed a notice of appeal with this Court on June 4, 1984. However, inasmuch as only questions of law were involved, we resolved to require the petitioner to seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court within 15 days from notice.

In the petition now before us, it is argued that the original petition in the trial court was not intended as a collateral attack on a Torrens title; hence, Art. 389 of the Civil Code 1 was not applicable.cralawnad

The private respondent, on the other hand, contends that since the petitioner claims she is an illegitimate child of Remigio Tol, she is prohibited under Art. 992 of the Civil Code 2 from inheriting ab intestato from the relatives of her father.

The private respondent likewise questions the necessity of her appointment for the purpose only of having the title annulled. He adds that in view of her allegations of fraud, she should have sued for the annulment of the title within a period of one year, which had already expired. Lastly, the decision of the trial court had already become final and executory because 76 days had already elapsed from the date of receipt of the said decision on May 21, 1987, to the date the petition was filed before this Court on August 5, 1987.

A study of the record reveals that the lower court was rather hasty in dismissing the petition.

As we see it, the petition was not a collateral attack on a Torrens title. The petitioner did say there was a need to appoint an administrator to prevent the property from being usurped, but this did not amount to a collateral attack on the title. The alleged fraudulent issuance of title was mentioned as a justification for her appointment as administrator. But there was nothing in the petition to indicate that the petitioner would attack the title issued to Diosdado in the same proceeding. In fact, the petitioner declared that whatever remedy she might choose would be pursued in another venue, in a proceeding entirely distinct and separate from her petition for appointment as administratrix.

Regarding the Torrens certificate of title to the disputed property which was presented to defeat the petitioner’s appointment, we feel that the position of trial court was rather ambivalent. For while relying on such title to justify the dismissal of the petition, it suggested at the same time that it could be attacked as long as this was not done in the proceeding before it.

The private respondent’s arguments that the petitioner cannot inherit ab intestato from the legitimate parents of the absentee is immaterial to this case. Her disqualification as an heir to her supposed grandparents does not inhibit her from petitioning for a declaration of absence or to be appointed as an administratrix of the absentee’s estate.

The relevant laws on the matter are found in the following provisions of the Civil Code:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Art. 381. When a person disappears from his domicile his whereabouts being unknown, and without leaving an agent to administer his property the judge, at the instance of an interested party, a relative, or a friend, may appoint a person to represent him in all that may be necessary.

This same rule shall be observed when under similar circumstances the power conferred by the absentee has expired.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Art. 382. The appointment referred to in the preceding article having been made, the judge shall take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights and interest of the absentee and shall specify the powers, obligations and remuneration of his representatives, regulating them according to the circumstances, by the rules concerning guardians.

Art. 383. In the appointment of a representative, the spouse present shall be preferred when there is no legal separation.

If the absentee left no spouse, or if the spouse present is a minor, any competent person may be appointed by the court.

Art. 384. Two years having elapsed without any news about the absentee or since the receipt of the last news, and five years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of the administration of his property, his absence may be declared.

Art. 385. The following may ask for the declaration of absence:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) The spouse present;

(2) The heirs instituted in a will, who may present an authentic copy of the same;

(3) The relatives who may succeed by the law of intestacy;

(4) Those who may have over the property of the absentee some right subordinated to the condition of his death.

Art. 386. The judicial declaration of absence shall not take effect until six months after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

It is not necessary that a declaration of absence be made in a proceeding separate from and prior to a petition for administration. This was the ruling in Reyes v. Alejandro, 3 reiterating Pejer v. Martinez. 4 In the latter case, the court declared that the petition to declare the husband an absentee and the petition to place the management of the conjugal properties in the hands of the wife could be combined and adjudicated in the same proceeding.

The purpose of the cited rules is the protection of the interests and property of the absentee, not of the administrator. Thus, the question of whether the administrator may inherit the property to be administered is not controlling. What is material is whether she is one of those allowed by law to seek the declaration of absence of Remigio Tol and whether she is competent to be appointed as administratrix of his estate.

The issue of whether or not the property titled to Diosdado Tol is really owned by him should be resolved in another proceeding. The right of Daya Maria Tol to be appointed administratrix cannot be denied outright by reason alone of such issue.

Even if it be assumed that the title obtained by Diosdado Tol is already indefeasible because of the lapse of the one-year period for attacking it on the ground of fraud, there are still other remedies available to one who is unjustly deprived of his property. One of these is a claim for reconveyance, another a complaint for damages. 5 The petitioner can avail herself of such remedies if she is appointed administratrix of the estate of the absentee.

Finally, we find that the appeal was perfected seasonably. Notice of appeal was filed on June 4, 1987, within the 15-day extension of the period to appeal as granted by this Court in its resolution dated July 8, 1987.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the court of origin for determination of the legal personality of Daya Maria Tol to petition the declaration of Remigio Tol’s absence and of her competence to be appointed as administratrix of his estate.

SO ORDERED.

Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Art. 389. The administration shall cease in any of the following cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) When the absentee appears personally or by means of an agent;

(2) When the death of the absentee is proved and his testate or intestate heirs appear;

(3) When a third person appears, showing by a proper document that he has acquired the absentee’s property by purchase or other title;

In these cases the administrator shall cease in the performance of his office, and the property shall be at the disposal of those who may have a right thereto.

2. Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.

3. 141 SCRA 65.

4. 88 Phil. 72.

5. Quiniano v. Court of Appeals, 39 SCRA 221; Cabanos v. Register of Deeds of Laguna, 40 Phil. 620.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 94785 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO A. LOSTE

  • G.R. No. 98243 July 1, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ARADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98432 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO PLETADO

  • G.R. No. 100198 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLIE VILLORENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100772 July 1, 1992 - ALEX GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94588 July 2, 1992 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. NLRC (POEA), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96745 July 2, 1992 - MANUEL MELGAR DE LA CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-490 July 3, 1992 - YOLANDA DIPUTADO-BAGUIO v. FELIPE T. TORRES

  • A.C. No. 2349 July 3, 1992 - DOROTHY B. TERRE v. ATTY. JORDAN TERRE

  • G.R. Nos. 37012-13 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO NOMAT, SR.

  • G.R. No. 64284 July 3, 1992 - JOSE S. VELASQUEZ v. MARTIN NERY

  • G.R. No. 69971 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO C. LUVENDINO

  • G.R. Nos. 76818-19 July 3, 1992 - CDCP TEWU v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88752 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO P. MANANSALA

  • G.R. No. 88912 July 3, 1992 - TIERRA INT’L. CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 90803 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO ARMENTANO

  • G.R. No. 92136 July 3, 1992 - EDGARDO DYTIAPCO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92391 July 3, 1992 - PFVI INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 93016 July 3, 1992 - UNITED ALUMINUM FABRICATORS v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 94566 July 3, 1992 - BA FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95048 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER MONTILLA

  • G.R. No. 96054 July 3, 1992 - MARIANO M. LAZATIN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96628 July 3, 1992 - CEFERINO INCIONG v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 96825 July 3, 1992 - RAVA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96865 July 3, 1992 - MARCELINO KIAMCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96410 July 3, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96915 July 3, 1992 - CONCEPCION DUMAGAT v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 97419 July 3, 1992 - GAUDENCIO T. CENA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 98440 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME LAURORA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 101208 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY R. TOMENTOS

  • G.R. No. 101273 July 3, 1992 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

  • G.R. No. 101526 July 3, 1992 - RODELA D. TORREGOZA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101703 July 3, 1992 - LUCRECIA DELA ROSA v. ROSARIO M. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 101724 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 101808 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON BOLANOS

  • G.R. No. 101919 July 3, 1992 - RODOLFO ALCANTARA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 102342 July 3, 1992 - LUZ M. ZALDIVIA, v. ANDRES B. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 102494 July 3, 1992 - MAXIMO FELICILDA v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. No. 102606 July 3, 1992 - LINO R. TOPACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105111 July 3, 1992 - RAMON L. LABO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 49282 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT PIZARRO

  • G.R. No. 88300 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNIE C. LAPAN

  • G.R. No. 91879 July 6, 1992 - HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100168 July 8, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101619 July 8, 1992 - SANYO PHIL. WORKERS UNION v. POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES

  • G.R. No. 41420 July 10, 1992 - CMS LOGGING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89554 July 10, 1992 - JUANITO A. ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95253 July 10, 1992 - CONSUELO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 97144-45 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO "BEN" VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 98430 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO NECERIO

  • G.R. No. 98467 July 10, 1992 - NATIONAL DEV’T CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101749 July 10, 1992 - CONRADO BUNAG, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96189 July 14, 1992 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 100866 July 14, 1992 - REBECCA BOYER-ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 75879 July 15, 1992 - VIRGINIA SECRETARIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 93752 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAROY T. BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. No. 97147 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX QUERRER

  • G.R. No. 100482 July 15, 1992 lab

    NEW VALLEY TIMES PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 68102 July 16, 1992 - GEORGE MCKEE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 89265 July 17, 1992 - ARTURO G. EUDELA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92383 July 17, 1992 - SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94493 July 17, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ATIENZA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95778 July 17, 1992 - SKYWORLD CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM.

  • G.R. Nos. 64725-26 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ALACAR

  • G.R. No. 77396 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 84250 July 20, 1992 - DAYA MARIA TOL-NOQUERA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • G.R. Nos. 93411-12 July 20, 1992 - ENCARNACION FLORES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 94534 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO BIGCAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 95844 July 20, 1992 - COMMANDO SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96712 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 104678 July 20, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 95254-55 July 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS U. ABUYAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 96091 July 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO L. HOBLE

  • G.R. No. 73679 July 23, 1992 - HONESTO B. VILLAROSA v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 79903 July 23, 1992 - CONTECH CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82293 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO B. MADRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 85490 July 23, 1992 - CLUB FILIPINO, INC. v. JESUS C. SEBASTIAN

  • G.R. No. 90856 July 23, 1992 - ARTURO DE GUZMAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 95067 July 23, 1992 - GERARDO ARANAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95900 July 23, 1992 - JULIUS C. OUANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96914 July 23, 1992 - CECILIA U. LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100493 July 23, 1992 - HEIRS OF JAIME BINUYA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102070 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID A. ALFECHE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 90270 July 24, 1992 - ARMANDO V. SIERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90318 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFERIO IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 91847 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO MARTOS

  • G.R. No. 97816 July 24, 1992 - MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 1129 July 27, 1992 - PERFECTO MENDOZA v. ALBERTO B. MALA

  • G.R. No. 97092 July 27, 1992 - PEPSI-COLA SALES AND ADVERTISING UNION v. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 2984 July 29, 1992 - RODOLFO M. BERNARDO, JR. v. ISMAEL F. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 40145 July 29, 1992 - SEVERO SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50260 July 29, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 68037 July 29, 1992 - PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP. v. MAXIMO M. JAPZON

  • G.R. No. 94547 July 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID S. SAULO

  • G.R. No. 94590 July 29, 1992 - CHINA AIRLINES LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94771 July 29, 1992 - RAMON J. VELORIA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS