Ramon S. Ching and Po Wing Properties v. Hon. Jansen R. Rodriguez, et.
al
G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011
FACTS:
Respondents filed a complaint against the petitioners, captioned as one for
"Disinheritance, Declaration of Nullity of Agreement and Waiver, Affidavit of
Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificates of Title
with Prayer for [the] Issuance of [a] Temporary Restraining Order and [a] Writ
of Preliminary Injunction," was docketed as Civil Case No. 02-105251 and raffled
to Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC).
Among the prayers of the respondents was a temporary restraining order be
issued restraining the defendant RAMON CHING and/or his attorney-in-fact Belen
Dy Tan Ching from disposing, selling or alienating any property that belongs to the
estate of the deceased ANTONIO CHING.
The petitioners filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied
by the RTC. Respondents thereafter filed an Amended Complaint impleading
Metrobank as the successor-in-interest of co-defendant Global Bank. The RTC
admitted the respondents' Amended Complaint.
After the RTC’s issuance of a pre-trial order, the petitioners filed a Motion
to Dismiss the respondents' Amended Complaint on the alleged ground of the
RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint. The petitioners
argued that since the Amended Complaint sought the release of the CPPA to the
respondents, the latter's declaration as heirs of Antonio, and the propriety of
Ramon's disinheritance, the suit partakes of the nature of a special proceeding and
not an ordinary action for declaration of nullity. Hence, jurisdiction pertains to a
probate or intestate court and not to the RTC acting as an ordinary court. RTC
denied the petitioners' Motion to Dismiss. On appeal, the CA likewise denied the
petitioners’ petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the denial of RTC and CA of petitioners’ second motion to
dismiss was proper. (YES)
RULING:
The Court denied the instant petition.
No reversible errors were committed by the RTC and the CA when they both
ruled that the denial of the petitioners' second motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 02-
105251 was proper.
Even without delving into the procedural allegations of the respondents that
the petitioners engaged in forum shopping and are already estopped from
questioning the RTC's jurisdiction after having validly submitted to it when the
latter participated in the proceedings, the denial of the instant Petition is still in
order. Although the respondents' Complaint and Amended Complaint sought,
among others, the disinheritance of Ramon and the release in favor of the
respondents of the CPPA now under Metrobank's custody, Civil Case No. 02-
105251 remains to be an ordinary civil action, and not a special proceeding
pertaining to a settlement court.
An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil
action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person
such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a
special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application of specific rules
as provided for in the Rules of Court. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a
party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is distinguished from
an ordinary civil action where a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. To initiate a special
proceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be filed.
Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can be effected only through a
will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. This Court agrees with the
RTC and the CA that while the respondents in their Complaint and Amended
Complaint sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument
supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate was ever
mentioned. Hence, despite the prayer for Ramon's disinheritance, Civil Case No.
02-105251 does not partake of the nature of a special proceeding and does not call
for the probate court's exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
The respondents' resort to an ordinary civil action before the RTC may not
be strategically sound, because a settlement proceeding should thereafter still
follow, if their intent is to recover from Ramon the properties alleged to have been
illegally transferred in his name. Be that as it may, the RTC, in the exercise of its
general jurisdiction, cannot be restrained from taking cognizance of respondents'
Complaint and Amended Complaint as the issues raised and the prayers indicated
therein are matters which need not be threshed out in a special proceeding.
