G.R. No. 232579 - TREYES vs. LARLAR

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232579)

Factual Background

Rosie Larlar Treyes died intestate on May 1, 2008. She left no children and was survived by her husband, petitioner Treyes, and seven siblings who are the private respondents. At her death, Rosie held an interest in fourteen real estate parcels that formed part of the parties’ conjugal properties. Petitioner executed two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication and caused Transfer Certificates of Title to be issued in his name in 2011. The private respondents allege they were excluded from any legitimate settlement and that petitioner fraudulently caused reconveyance of the decedent’s property to himself.

Complaint and Reliefs Sought

On July 12, 2013 the private respondents filed a Complaint in the RTC seeking annulment of petitioner’s Affidavits of Self-Adjudication; cancellation of the Transfer Certificates of Title; reconveyance of ownership and possession to the estate; partition; and damages including moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. The private respondents attached birth certificates to the Complaint to establish their filiation with Rosie.

Trial Court Proceedings and Early Motions

Petitioner first filed an Entry of Special Appearance and a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was rendered moot after re-service of summons. Petitioner then filed a second Motion to Dismiss alleging improper venue, prescription, and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. In a Resolution dated July 15, 2014 the RTC denied the motion for lack of merit but held it had no jurisdiction over the partition cause of action and directed that partition be dropped from the case. The RTC directed petitioner to file an answer and denied petitioner’s Omnibus Motion for reconsideration and deferment.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Petitioner sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals. The CA in its Decision of August 18, 2016 and subsequent Resolution of June 1, 2017 denied the petition. The CA held that the Complaint primarily sought annulment of the affidavits of self-adjudication and reconveyance, which are ordinary civil actions over which the RTC had jurisdiction. The CA found venue proper, prescription inapplicable, and no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s denial of the second Motion to Dismiss.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The central issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s second Motion to Dismiss. Subsumed in that inquiry were three contested grounds: venue, prescription, and whether a prior judicial determination of heirship in a separate special proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary civil action by putative heirs to enforce succession-based ownership rights.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court, by majority, denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s second Motion to Dismiss.

Legal Reasoning — Venue and Omnibus Motion Rule

The Court held that Rule 73 governs special proceedings for settlement of estates and not ordinary civil actions. Because the private respondents’ Complaint partook the nature of an ordinary civil action, venue under Rule 73 was inapposite. The Court also applied the Omnibus Motion Rule under Rule 9, Section 1 and Rule 15, Section 8, explaining that petitioner waived the venue defense by failing to include it in his earlier Motion to Dismiss. The Court therefore sustained the RTC’s denial of dismissal on the ground of improper venue.

Legal Reasoning — Prescription and Constructive Trust

On prescription, the Court explained that Rule 74, Section 4 applies to special proceedings for settlement and distribution of estates and not to ordinary civil actions. The Court treated the private respondents’ reconveyance claim as one based on an implied or constructive trust under Art. 1456, Civil Code, as recognized in prior jurisprudence. The Court reasoned that actions for reconveyance grounded on a constructive trust prescribe in ten years under Art. 1144, Civil Code, reckoned from the issuance of the Torrens title that operates as constructive notice. Because the Torrens titles in petitioner’s name issued in 2011, the Court found no prescription had run as of the filing of the Complaint.

Legal Reasoning — Necessity of Prior Heirship Declaration

The Court addressed the pivotal question whether heirs must obtain a prior judicial declaration of heirship in a special proceeding before instituting an ordinary civil action to enforce succession-derived ownership rights. The Court emphasized Art. 777, Civil Code, which states that succession rights are transmitted from the moment of death. The Court surveyed jurisprudence, noting a historic line of En Banc decisions permitting heirs to assert succession-based rights in ordinary actions without prior judicial declaration when no special proceeding is pending. The Court concluded that an heir’s successional rights vest at death and that such heirs are real parties in interest entitled to seek annulment of conveyances and reconveyance in ordinary civil actions so long as no pending special proceeding for settlement or declaration of heirship exists.

Doctrinal Clarification and Holding

The Court expressly abandoned the line of Division cases that had held a prior special proceeding declaration of heirship was a prerequisite. The new rule declared by the Court is: unless there is a pending special proceeding for settlement of the decedent’s estate or for determination of heirship, compulsory or intestate heirs may commence ordinary civil actions to nullify deeds or instruments and to recover property or otherwise enforce ownership rights acquired by succession without necessity of a prior separate judicial declaration of heir

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 232579)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner is Dr. Nixon L. Treyes, who executed two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication claiming to be the sole heir of his deceased wife, Rosie Larlar Treyes.
Respondents are Antonio L. Larlar, Rev. Fr. Emilio L. Larlar, Heddy L. Larlar, Rene L. Larlar, Celeste L. Larlar, Judy L. Larlar, and Yvonne L. Larlar, who allege they are Rosie’s siblings and intestate heirs.
The complaint was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, San Carlos City, as Civil Case No. RTC-1226, seeking annulment of the self-adjudication affidavits, cancellation of TCTs, reconveyance, partition, and damages.
The RTC denied petitioner’s second Motion to Dismiss and dropped the partition cause for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals (CA), Nineteenth Division, affirmed in a Decision dated August 18, 2016 and in a Resolution dated June 1, 2017.
Petitioner sought review by the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court, which the Court denied.

Key Factual Allegations

Rosie died on May 1, 2008, intestate and childless, leaving her spouse petitioner and seven siblings who claim to be her heirs.
Rosie and petitioner allegedly owned fourteen real properties as conjugal properties that later became the subject properties described by multiple Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs).
Petitioner executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication dated September 2, 2008 and another dated May 19, 2011, and new TCTs were issued in his name in 2011.
Respondents allege they sent letters in February and April 2012 requesting settlement of Rosie’s estate and that they discovered re-issuance of titles to petitioner in late 2012.
Respondents filed the RTC Complaint on July 12, 2013 for annulment of the affidavits, cancellation of titles, reconveyance, partition, and damages.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed an Entry of Special Appearance and a first Motion to Dismiss dated October 25, 2013 alleging lack of jurisdiction over his person, after which re-service of summons was effected on May 12, 2014.
Petitioner filed a second Motion to Dismiss dated June 20, 2014 raising (a) improper venue under Rule 73, (b) prescription under Rule 74, Sec. 4, and (c) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The RTC denied the second Motion to Dismiss in its Resolution dated July 15, 2014 but held it lacked jurisdiction over the partition cause.
Petitioner’s Omnibus Motion to Reconsider was denied in an Order dated August 27, 2014, and petitioner filed a certiorari petition under Rule 65 with the CA on October 28, 2014.
The CA denied the certiorari petition in its Decision dated August 18, 2016 and denied reconsideration in its Resolution dated June 1, 2017, leading to the present Supreme Court review.

Issues Presented

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s second Motion to Dismiss.
Whether improper venue under Rule 73 required dismissal of the Complaint.
Whether the Complaint was barred by prescription under Rule 74, Sec. 4 or by applicable Civil Code prescription.
Whether a prior judicial determination of heirship in a separate special proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary civil action to nullify instruments, cancel titles, reconvey property, or otherwise enforce successional ownership rights.

Holdings

The petition was DENIED and the CA Decision dated August 18, 2016 and Resolution dated June 1, 2017 were AFFIRMED.
The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the second Motion to Dismiss.
The defense of improper venue was waived under the Omnibus Motion Rule when not raised in the first Motion to Dismiss and thus could not be successfully raised in the second Motion to Dismiss.
Prescription under Rule 74, Sec. 4 did not bar the Complaint because that rule pertains to special proceedings for settlement of estates and not to ordinary civil actions of the type filed by respondents.
The prescriptive period applic