Case Digest (G.R. No. 124320)
Facts:
Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay and Isabel Yaptinchay v. Hon. Roy S. Del Rosario, et al., G.R. No. 124320, March 02, 1999, Supreme Court Third Division, Purisima, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the alleged heirs of the late Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay (represented by Leticia Enciso‑Gadingan as attorney‑in‑fact). They claim ownership of Lot Nos. 1131 (520,638 sq. m.) and 1132 (96,235 sq. m.) in Bancal, Carmona, Cavite. On March 17, 1994, petitioners executed an Extra‑Judicial Settlement of the Yaptinchay estate.
On August 26, 1994, petitioners discovered that portions or all of the subject parcels had been titled in the name of respondent Golden Bay Realty and Development Corporation (TCT Nos. 225254 and 225255). Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of several TCTs and their derivatives, with an alternative reconveyance prayer and injunctive relief, docketed as RTC BCV‑94‑127 before Branch 21, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Imus, Cavite.
Petitioners amended their complaint to implead subsequent purchasers and to mention additional TCTs, but the RTC dismissed the Amended Complaint. After a motion for reconsideration was granted on July 7, 1995, petitioners filed a Second Amended Complaint. On August 12, 1995, private respondents moved to dismiss on grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, plaintiffs lacked right of action and proof of heirship, the land claimed differed from defendants', and the claim was barred by laches.
The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss in an Order dated October 25, 1995, finding that petitioners had not shown proof of heirship and holding that determination of heirship must be made in the proper special proceedings, not in an ordinary civil action. Petitioners’ motion for rec...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to challenge the RTC’s dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint?
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Second Amended Complaint for lack of proof of heirship and in holding that heirship must be determined in a special proceeding rather...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)