G.R. No. 240224 - People vs. Ortega

Petitioners Isabel P. Portugal and her son Jose Douglas Portugal Jr. filed a complaint on July 23, 1996 against respondent Leonila Portugal-Beltran for annulment of an Affidavit of Adjudication and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 159813.
They alleged respondent was not a legal heir of the deceased Jose Q. Portugal Sr., that she perjured herself in the Affidavit of Adjudication (Exh. “E”), and prayed for cancellation of respondent’s title, issuance of a new title in their favor, actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Jose Q. Portugal Sr. married Paz Lazo on November 25, 1942, and married Isabel de la Puerta on May 22, 1948. Two children were born:

On May 16, 1968, Jose Q. Portugal Sr. and his siblings executed an Extrajudicial Partition over their father’s estate, waiving their rights to a 155 sqm parcel in Caloocan in favor of Jose Q. Portugal Sr.
On January 2, 1970, TCT No. 34292 was issued in the name of “Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C. Lazo.”

Paz Lazo died on February 18, 1984; Portugal died intestate on April 21, 1985.
On February 15, 1988, respondent executed an Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir, adjudicating the Caloocan parcel to herself.
TCT No. 34292 was canceled and TCT No. 159813 was issued on March 9, 1988 to “Leonila Portugal-Beltran, married to Merardo M. Beltran Jr.”

On January 18, 2001, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction, ruling that petitioners’ status as heirs had not been established in a probate (special) proceeding (citing Heirs of Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario, 304 SCRA 18 [1999]).

The CA, by Decision of September 24, 2002, affirmed the RTC, holding that heirship must be determined in a special proceeding and an ordinary civil action cannot establish status or right.
It distinguished CariAo v. CariAo, 351 SCRA 127 (2001), on the ground that the main issue in CariAo was the validity of marriages for death benefits, whereas the instant case concerned annulment of title to property.

The CA misapplied Heirs of Yaptinchay despite the later and contrary CariAo ruling.
They had already established heirship by documentary and testimonial evidence.

They prayed for reversal of the CA decision and entry of judgment in their favor, or alternatively, remand for determination of marriage validity and heirship.

Whether petitioners must first institute a special proceeding for adjudication of heirship before pursuing their civil action for annulment of respondent’s Affidavit of Adjudication and TCT.
Whether the trial court and CA erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the evidence adduced during trial sufficed to establish petitioners’ status as compulsory heirs.