EN BANC

G.R. No. 232579; September. 8, 2020

DR. NIXON L. TREYES, Petitioner – Versus- ANTONI L. LARLAR, et al Respondents
CAGUIOA, J.:
NATURE OF ACTION: Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds: (1) improper venue; (2) prescription;
and (3) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
FACTS: On May 1, 2008, Rosie Larlar Treyes, the wife of petitioner Treyes, passed away. Rosie, who did
not bear any children with petitioner Treyes, died without any will. Rosie also left behind seven siblings,
i.e., the private respondents Antonio et al. At the time of her death, Rosie left behind 14 real estate
properties, situated in various locations in the Philippines, which she owned together with petitioner
Treyes as their conjugal properties (subject properties).

Subsequently, petitioner Treyes executed two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication dated September 2, 2008
and May 19, 2011. The first Affidavit of Self-Adjudication was registered by petitioner Treyes with the
Register of Deeds of Marikina City on March 24, 2011, while the second Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
was registered with the RD of Negros Occidental on June 5, 2011. In these two Affidavits of Self-
Adjudication, petitioner Treyes transferred the estate of Rosie unto himself, claiming that he was the
sole heir.

As alleged by the private respondents, they sent a letter to petitioner Treyes requesting for a conference
to discuss the settlement of the estate of their deceased sister, Rosie but this request fell on deafears.
The private respondents then discovered that the TCTs previously registered in the name of their sister
and petitioner Treyes had already been cancelled. New titles had been issued in the name of petitioner
Treyes on the basis of the two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication.

Hence, the private respondents filed before the RTC a Complaint for annulment of the Affidavits of Self-
Adjudication, cancellation of TCTs, reconveyance of ownership and possession, partition, and damages
against petitioner Treyes. In their Complaint, the private respondents alleged that petitioner Treyes
fraudulently caused the transfer of the subject properties to himself by executing the two Affidavits of
Self-Adjudication and refused to reconvey the shares of the private respondents who, being the
brothers and sisters of Rosie, are legal heirs of the deceased.

As alleged by petitioner Treyes, his household helper, Elizabeth Barientos was supposedly aggressively
approached by two persons who demanded that she receive a letter for and on behalf of petitioner
Treyes. Barientos refused. As it turned out, the said letter was the summons issued by the RTC
addressed to petitioner Treyes in relation to the Complaint filed by the private respondents. Petitioner
Treyes, through counsel then filed an Entry of Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss assailing for
the dismissal of the Complaint due to lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Treyes. On June
5, 2014, petitioner Treyes was personally served with another Summons together with a copy of the
Complaint. Petitioner Treyes then filed another Motion to Dismiss dated June 20, 2014 (second Motion
to Dismiss), arguing that the private respondents’ Complaint should be dismissed on the following
grounds: (1) improper venue; (2) prescription; and (3) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The RTC held that it did not acquire jurisdiction over the Complaint’s third cause of action, i.e., partition:
x x x A perusal of the Complaint shows that the causes of action are 1) the Annulment of the Affidavit of
Self Adjudication; 2) Reconveyance (3) Partition; and 4) Damages. Hence, the Court has jurisdiction over
the first, second and fourth causes of action but no jurisdiction over the third cause of action of
Partition and the said cause of action should be dropped from the case.

Issue: Whether or not the CA was correct in ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied petitioner Treyes’ second Motion to Dismiss.

RULING: Yes.
Improper Venue
Citing Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules petitioner Treyes posits that the correct venue for the settlement
of a decedent’s estate is the residence of the decedent at the time of her death, which was at Katipunan
Avenue, Quezon City. Hence, petitioner Treyes maintains that the settlement of her estate should have
been filed with the RTC of Quezon City, and not at San Carlos City, Negros Occidental.

The Court finds and holds that the Complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground of improper
venue on the basis of Rule 73 because such Rule refers exclusively to the special proceeding of
settlement of estates and NOT to ordinary civil actions. Moreover, the Court finds that improper venue
as a ground for the dismissal of the Complaint was already deemed waived in accordance with the
Omnibus Motion Rule. According to Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules, defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except with respect to the
grounds of (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) litis pendentia, (3) res judicata, and (4)
prescription of the action. In turn, Rule 15, Section 8 states that judgment, or proceeding shall include a
motion attaching a pleading, order, all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall
be deemed waived. The issue of improper venue was not raised in the first Motion to Dismiss, and
then this ground is deemed already waived and could no longer be raised in the second Motion to
Dismiss.
Prescription
Petitioner Treyes also argues that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the
Complaint since the period for the filing of the Complaint had already supposedly prescribed. The Court
likewise finds this argument to be without merit. The Court stresses that Rule 74 pertains exclusively to
the settlement of estates, which is a special proceeding and NOT an ordinary civil action. It is evident
that not all the legal heirs of Rosie participated in the extrajudicial settlement of her estate as indeed, it
was only petitioner Treyes who executed the Affidavits of Self- Adjudication. In this regard, it is well to
note that it is the prescriptive period pertaining to constructive trusts which finds application in the
instant case.

It has been settled in a long line of cases that “an action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust prescribes in [10] years from the issuance of the Torrens title in the name of the
trustee] over the property.”

In cases wherein fraud was alleged to have been attendant in the trustee’s registration of the subject
property in his/her own name, the prescriptive period is 10 years reckoned from the date of the
issuance of the original certificate of title or TCT since such issuance operates as a constructive notice to
the whole world, the discovery of the fraud being deemed to have taken place at that time."
Accordingly, it is clear here that prescription has not set in as the private respondents still have until
2021 to file an action for reconveyance, given that the certificates of title were issued in the name of
petitioner Treyes only in 2011.

The Necessity of a Prior Determination of Heirship in a Separate Special Proceeding

The Court now proceeds to discuss the centerpiece of petitioner Treyes’ Petition — that the RTC has no
jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide the subject matter of the private respondents’ Complaint because
the determination of the status of the legal heirs in a separate special proceeding is a prerequisite to an
ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property instituted by the legal heirs.

In the instant case, it is readily apparent from the allegations in the Complaint filed by the private
respondents that the action was not instituted for the determination of their status as heirs, as it
was their position that their status as heirs was already established ipso jure without the need of
any judicial confirmation. Instead, what the Complaint alleges is that the private respondents’ rights
over the subject properties, by virtue of their being siblings of the deceased, must be enforced by
annulling the Affidavits of Self- Adjudication and ordering the reconveyance of the subject properties.

Hence, as correctly held by the RTC in its Resolution, the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the Complaint, considering that the law confers upon the RTC jurisdiction over civil actions which
involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value
of the property involved exceeds P20, 000.00 for civil actions outside Metro Manila, or where the
assessed value exceeds P50, 000.00 for civil actions in Metro Manila.

That the private respondents do not really seek in their Complaint the establishment of their rights as
intestate heirs but, rather, the enforcement of their rights already granted by law as intestate heirs finds
basis in Article 777 of the Civil Code, which states that the rights of succession are transmitted from the
moment of the death of the decedent.

Henceforth, the rule is: unless there is a pending special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent’s
estate or for the determination of heirship, the compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an
ordinary civil action to declare the nullity of a deed or instrument, and for recovery of property, or any
other action in the enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, without the
necessity of a prior and separate judicial declaration of their status as such. The ruling of the trial court
shall only be in relation to the cause of action of the ordinary civil action which ruling is binding only
between and among the parties. Therefore, the Court is in total agreement with the CA that the RTC
did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying
petitioner Treyes’ second Motion to Dismiss. Instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is
hereby DENIED.