THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231484. March 21, 2018.]
HILARIO E. SAQUILAYAN AND ROSARIO A. SAQUILAYAN, petitioners,vs. MARITES P. NAVARES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 231484 (Hilario E. Saquilayan and Rosario A. Saquilayan, Petitioners, v. Marites P. Navares, Respondent.) — The late Alan Saquilayan (Alan) was the son of the petitioners and the former husband of the respondent. In 1998, the petitioners donated to Alan a parcel of land with an area of 2,000 square meters located in Davao City. During his lifetime, Alan acquired a house and lot in Davao City through the Home Development Mutual Fund. On June 3, 2002, Alan and the respondent were married. However, the marriage was annulled on April 5, 2005. On October 20, 2010, Alan passed away.
The petitioners, alleging that the respondent tried to transfer the titles of Alan's properties to her name, brought this action for specific performance in the Regional Trial Court in Davao City (RTC). The case was assigned to Branch 16 of the RTC. During the pre-trial, the parties agreed on the following issues, namely: (1) whether or not the respondent could inherit the properties subject matter of the case; (2) whether or not the properties were conjugal; and (3) whether or not the parties were entitled to recover damages and attorney's fees from the other.
The petitioners contended that the properties were not covered by the rule on absolute community of property but by the rules on co-ownership. On her part, the respondent insisted that because she and Alan were married during the effectivity of the Family Code, all the properties owned by Alan prior to the marriage should not be excluded from the absolute community of property.
On March 1, 2013, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners, 1 ruling that because the marriage of the respondent and Alan was declared void pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code, what should govern the liquidation of the properties owned in common by them were the rules on co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code; that the properties acquired by Alan prior to the marriage should not be included or considered as co-owned by them inasmuch as she miserably failed to prove that the properties were acquired by both of them through their work or industry; and that the Register of Deeds should cancel the affidavit of adverse claim annotated by her on the land titles.
On appeal, the CA reversed the judgment of the RTC through the assailed decision promulgated on January 13, 2017, and dismissed the complaint based on the following reasons, namely:
(a) There was no contractual relationship between the petitioners and the respondent; hence, the RTC should have dismissed the complaint for specific performance inasmuch as there was nothing that she must perform in their favor;
(b) Regardless of the nomenclature of the complaint, the RTC resolved the property regime that governed the union of the respondent and Alan despite the records showing that there was no settlement yet of Alan's estate, or that there was an identification of the number of his legitimate heirs; their claim that Alan had died without issue was also debunked by the attachment of a birth certificate revealing that the deceased begot an illegitimate child in 2004; there was also no allegation if Alan left a will, a matter that must be decided by the proper intestate court;
(c) The settlement of estates of deceased persons fell within the rules on special proceedings, not a civil action for specific performance; hence, the petitioners should have initiated proceedings under the rules on special proceedings to pursue the reliefs they sought. Their resort to the ordinary civil action for specific performance was improper for it was done on the pretext of obtaining a favorable settlement of Alan's properties;
(d) The validity of the adverse claim could only be determined by the court upon a petition by an interested party; however, there was no showing herein that a petition to cancel the adverse claim on the title was ever filed or any hearing on the matter was ever held; and
(e) The RTC erred in adjudicating the case; its act of doing so was ultra vires for being clearly beyond the scope of its authority; accordingly, its acts were null and void and could not be given any effect.
In this appeal, therefore, the petitioners posit that the CA committed reversible error when it did not rule on the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief thereby sought. They remind that the nature of their action was not to be determined by the title or nomenclature of the complaint. They disagreed with the CA's disquisition on the cancellation of the annotation of adverse claim on the deceased's land title. aScITE
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in promulgating the assailed decision as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
We agree that the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief thereby sought determine the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over the action. The complaint filed in this case was for specific performance, and the reliefs sought was for the court to settle the estate of Alan and the respondent as his former spouse by determining whether or not she had any right to the properties left by him. Concordant with applicable jurisprudence, however, since the determination of heirship is a matter covered by the rules on special proceedings, the same cannot be adjudicated in an ordinary action for specific performance. For that reason, therefore, the CA did not err in the complaint. The RTC erred in ruling on the respondent's right to inherit from him. Moreover, the determination of who were Alan's legal heirs must be made in the proper special proceedings, not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property or, as in this case, a suit for specific performance.
The RTC further erred in ordering the cancellation of the annotation of adverse claim considering that there was no petition filed or hearing conducted for the purpose.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on January 13, 2017; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the cost of suit. (Leonen, J.,on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 36-40; penned by Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio.