Title
TREYES vs. LARLAR
Case
G.R. No. 232579
Decision Date
Sep 8, 2020
Widower executed affidavits claiming sole heirship over deceased wife's estate; siblings contested, seeking annulment, reconveyance, and partition. SC upheld jurisdiction, no prior heirship declaration required.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147420)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • On May 1, 2008, Rosie Larlar Treyes (Rosie) died intestate, childless, survived by her husband, Dr. Nixon L. Treyes (petitioner), and seven siblings (private respondents).
    • At her death, Rosie and petitioner owned 14 real estate parcels as conjugal property.
  • Self-Adjudication and Registration
    • Petitioner executed two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication (Sept. 2, 2008; May 19, 2011) and registered them in Marikina City and San Carlos City.
    • As a result, new Torrens titles covering the 14 parcels were issued in petitioner’s name, excluding Rosie’s siblings.
  • Correspondence and Discovery
    • Beginning Feb. 13, 2012, respondents wrote petitioner requesting an estate settlement conference, and again on April 3, 2012; petitioner did not respond.
    • Respondents discovered the old titles cancelled and new ones issued in petitioner’s name.
  • Trial Court Proceedings
    • July 12, 2013: respondents filed a Complaint in RTC-1226 for
      • Annulment of the two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication and cancellation of corresponding Torrens titles
      • Reconveyance of respondents’ successional shares
      • Partition of Rosie’s estate
      • Moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses
    • Petitioner’s first Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 25, 2013) for lack of personal jurisdiction; later perfected service.
    • Second Motion to Dismiss (June 20, 2014) for improper venue, prescription, and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; RTC denied it on July 15, 2014 but ordered partition cause of action dropped.
    • Petitioner’s Omnibus Motion (July 28, 2014) for reconsideration and to defer answer; RTC denied (Aug. 27, 2014).
  • Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
    • Petitioner filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with CA; CA denied it (Decision Aug. 18, 2016; Resolution June 1, 2017).
    • Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional Challenge
    • Did the RTC gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s second Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction?
    • Is prior judicial determination of heirship in a special proceeding required before heirs can file an ordinary civil action to enforce successional rights?
  • Venue and Prescription
    • Was venue improperly laid in San Carlos City?
    • Was the action barred by prescription at the time of filing?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.