G.R. No. 224144 - Capablanca vs. Heirs of Bas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224144)

Applicable Law and Procedural Background

The case was decided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, given the decision date of June 28, 2017. The subject property and claims involve issues of ownership, heirship, and validity of property titles. Procedurally, the case originated as a complaint for cancellation of titles and declaration of ownership filed by Lolita before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City in 1997. The RTC ruled in her favor in 2007, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision in 2014, dismissing her complaint for failure to first secure a judicial declaration of heirship to Norberto Bas.

Facts on Ownership and Chain of Title

Lot 2535 was patented to Andres and Pedro Bas in 1937. Pedro sold his portion to Faustina Manreal in 1939, with the deed specifying a "seeding capacity of four chupas of com [corn]." Following several successive sales within Faustina's heirs, the property was eventually bought by Norberto Bas in 1988, who possessed and developed the land. Upon Norberto’s death without a will in 1995, Lolita became his sole heir. Meanwhile, the heirs of Pedro Bas obtained titles to portions of the property based on their claim of inheritance. Disputes arose over the validity of these claims, supported by allegations that Pedro had not validly executed the 1939 sale owing to his illiteracy and questioned signatures.

Trial Court Findings and Decision

The RTC found in favor of Lolita, ruling that she had been in long possession of the property under a claim of ownership as Norberto's sole heir. The court held that there was no need for prior judicial declaration of heirship before pursuing cancellation of competing titles. It upheld the validity of the 1939 Deed of Sale from Pedro to Faustina, rejecting the heirs’ claims of forgery based on Pedro’s illiteracy as uncorroborated and self-serving. The court also found that Pedro’s share constituted approximately 3,060 square meters (verified by survey in 1996), larger than the 1,000 square meters initially estimated. Therefore, Pedro’s heirs had no valid share to inherit as Pedro had already sold his interest. The RTC ordered cancellation of the transfer certificates of title issued in favor of the heirs of Pedro Bas.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissing Lolita’s complaint for lack of cause of action. It held that Lolita was required to obtain a judicial declaration of her heirship to Norberto Bas through a special proceeding before asserting rights over the property. The CA relied on the precedent of Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario (1999), which involved competing claims based solely on heirship status. The CA noted that no such prior heirship declaration was made, invalidating Lolita’s claim in the civil case, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to filing such proceeding.

Petitioner’s Arguments on Reconsideration and Grounds for Petition

Lolita contended that the CA erred by applying Yaptinchay incorrectly since her claim derives from a valid chain of sale starting with Pedro’s 1939 sale, not solely on heirship. She argued the respondents waived any objection to her capacity to sue by not timely raising lack of cause of action as a defense or through a motion to dismiss. Petitioner maintained that requiring a declaration of heirship when possession was long established and ownership traced through sale transactions would cause unnecessary delays and lead to multiplicity of suits.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Necessity of Judicial Declaration of Heirship

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that a prior judicial declaration of heirship is not a required precondition to asserting ownership rights as an heir in civil actions involving property rights. The Court emphasized the nature of the claim: the dispute concerns the validity of the property’s sale by Pedro Bas to Faustina, followed by successive transfers culminating in Norberto’s acquisition and thus in Lolita’s right. The ruling recalled that, as per Article 777 of the Civil Code, rights of succession pass by operation of law at death without need for judicial intervention for an heir to bring action to protect inherited property.

The Court distinguished this case from Yaptinchay, where claims stemmed solely from contested heirship. Here, Lolita’s claim rested on ownership deriving from valid property transactions, not on establishing heirship against adverse claimants. The Court further explained that respondents never timely objected to Lolita’s capacity to sue, thereby waiving the defense under Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. The Court also cited precedents such as Marabilles v. Quito and Cabuyao v. Caagbay, holding that judicial declaration of heirship is not necessary to enforce ownership rights acquired by succession.

Distinction from Cases Mandating Exclusive Jurisdiction of Probate Courts

The Court reviewed the factual differences from cases like Litam v. Rivera and Solivio v. Court of Appeals, which involved controversies between putative heirs and required exclusive

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 224144)

Case Background and Parties Involved

The case concerns a Petition for Review assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated March 12, 2014, and Resolution dated March 15, 2016, which reversed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) favorable Decision dated December 26, 2007.
The property involved is Lot 2535 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Land’s Estate, situated in Barangay Biasong, Dumlog, Talisay, Cebu, with an area of 6,120 square meters.
The original owners were Andres Bas and Pedro Bas, who acquired the lot, with Patent No. 1724 issued in their names on May 12, 1937.
Pedro Bas sold his portion of Lot 2535 to Faustina Manreal by a notarized Deed of Sale dated November 28, 1939.
Subsequent transfers passed the property through Faustina's heirs, Alejandra Balorio, Edith N. Deen, Atty. Eddy A. Deen, and eventually to Norberto B. Bas.
Norberto died in 1995, and his sole heir was his niece, the petitioner Lolita Bas Capablanca.
The respondents are the heirs of Pedro Bas, represented by Josefina Bas Espinosa, and the Register of Deeds of Cebu.

Historical Transfers and Property Ownership Dispute

After Pedro Bas’s sale in 1939, multiple conveyances occurred until Norberto B. Bas acquired the property in 1988.
Norberto took possession and constructed a house thereon.
Following Norberto’s death, Lolita succeeded him as sole heir.
Lolita discovered that Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-96676 was issued in the names of Andres and Pedro based on a reconstituted deed.
The heirs of Pedro Bas, through Josefina, filed a complaint alleging cloud on their ownership and contesting the title.
Despite a Partition Agreement among heirs of Andres and Lolita partitioning Lot 2535 on December 16, 1996, Lolita was denied registration of her portion without a court order.
Multiple TCTs covering parts of Lot 2535 were issued in the names of the heirs of Pedro Bas in 1997.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

Lolita filed a complaint in 1997 for cancellation of the disputed titles and recognition of her ownership, praying for damages and legal fees.
The heirs of Pedro Bas countered by arguing the 1939 sale was forged because Pedro Bas was illiterate and allegedly did not sign the Deed of Sale.
The RTC ruled in favor of Lolita Bas Capablanca, finding substantial evidence of her possession under a claim of ownership.
It held that it was unnecessary for Lolita to be judicially declared heir of Norberto before filing the complaint.
The RTC found Heirs of Pedro Bas' argument of Pedro's illiteracy and signature forgery uncorroborated and self-serving.
Testimonies and a notarized Assignment of Sale Cert