Spec Pro R91 Escheat Cases 6-10 Digest

Transcript

#6 Municipality of Magallon et al vs. Bezore, GR # L-1415, !ct. ", 1$6 acquired its  Spec Pro Doctrine: A court that has acquired  jurisdiction by virtue of a publication of the petition  for escheat CANNOT be converted into one for the distribution of the properties of the decedents. deceden ts. %&'()* The Municipalities of Magallon, et. al. instituted estate proceedings in the CFI of Negros Occidental for the estates of the deceased Anne Fallon Murphy, Thomas Fallon (married to Julia Fallon of their !arious real properties (agricultural " residential as #ell as rental deposits #ith $%C &td. for the 'enefit of said municipalities. The CFI  udge found the petition to 'e in order and ordered the pu'lication for escheat proceedings and the hearing to 'e set. The petition for escheat #as instituted since the municipalities 'elie!ed that Anne, Thomas, and Julia had died #ithout heirs. They all died in California on different dates. An opposition to the escheat proceedings #as filed 'y Ignatius %e)ore et. al. *e claims that he is a nephe# of the decedents 'ecause his mother #as their sister. Others also claimed to 'e legatees of Anne and other relati!es in the case at 'ar. All All oppositors are praying that the petition for escheat  'e dismissed and that the properties of the decedent  'e distri'uted among them. The CFI, after unco!ering that Thomas died #ith an heir (his #ife and Anne died lea!ing a #ill (in #hich she disposed of all her properties, denied the petition for escheat proceedings of the municipalities. *o#e!er, the prayers of the opppositors #ere denied since the e!idence they su'mitted #as insufficient to sustain their claims. As a response, the oppositors appealed said decision. +))* $hether or not the CFI udge had authority to settle the estate of the deceased parties in fa!or of  the oppositors. L/* NO. The initial proceedings #ere in the nature of escheat proceedings and NOT for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons. +ince the CFI acuired urisdiction 'y #ay of the pu'lication pu' lication of the petition for escheat, it CANNOT 'e con!erted into one for the distri'ution of the properties of the said decedents. For such proceedings to 'e instituted, the proper parties must 'e presented and the proceedings should comply #ith the reuirements of the necessary rule. *-NC-, the CFI did not ha!e any po#er to order, or to proceed #ith the distri'ution of the estates of the decedents in these escheat  proceedings, and adudicate the properties to the oppositors. # /ivino vs. ilario, GR # L-44650, anuary "4, 1$26  Spec Pro Doctrine: A court cannot acquire  jurisdiction over escheat proceedings proceedings if the notice of publication requirement under the rules are not  followed. It also follows that such court cannot  grant any remedy under the rules if it did did not tae cogni!ance over the escheat proceedings. %&'()* In the CFI of a!ao, Tan /ui +ing (T/+  'egan intestate proceedings for the deceased Tan Tan Chay (TC. 0art of T/+1s petition petition said that TC #as  party to a ci!il case pending appeal to this court, and #hile the properties #ere still 'eing determined, a special admin. 'e appointed to duly represent the deceased in the appeal. CFI then appointed Ang &iongto (A& as +A. A& made an in!entory and found out that he had left 023 in cash in the possession of 0 hilippine Foreign Trading " Company (0FTC and 0456 as rents of a house. -!entually, the CFI ordered the petition of T/+ 'e set for trial and ordered that the notice of trial 'e  pu'lished in the ne#spaper "l ne#spaper "l #agindanaw once #agindanaw once  per #ee3 for three consecuti!e #ee3s. The notice 3&) !( BL+)/. +ince the notice #as not pu'lished, no one appeared during the hearing and the CFI e!entually declared that TC died #ithout any legal heirs. The 023 sum #as acuired 'y the municipal president of  7uianga. -milia i!ino (-, guardian of %ien!enido, -speran)e, and Narciso, all surnamed &oo Tan y i!ino, appeared in the case and filed a motion to set aside the decree escheating the 023 to the municipality of 7uianga, to declare the minors the only heirs of TC, and to adudicate to them 'y eual share the sum of 023. -1s legal 'asis #as +ection 829 of the Code of Ci!il 0rocedure in #hich the minors could a!ail. +))* $hether or not the CFI acuired  urisdiction o!er the escheat proceedings o!er the estate of the deceased TC. L/* NO. +ections 826 and 829 of the Code of Ci!il 0rocedure, applica'le to case, pro!ide as follo#s: +-C. 826. $rocedure when persons dies intestate without heirs. ; $hen a person dies intestate, sei)ed of real or personal 'y la# entitled to the same, the president and municipal council of the municipality #here the deceased last resided, if he #as an inha'itant of these Islands, or of the municipality in #hich he had estate, if he resided out of the Islands, may, on 'ehalf of the municipality, file a petition #ith the Court of First Instance of the pro!ince for an inuisition in the premises< the court shall thereupon appoint a time and place of hearing, and deciding on such petition, cause a notice thereof to 'e pu'lished in some ne#spaper of general circulation in the  pro!ince of #hich the deceased #as last an inha'itant, if #ithin the 0hilippine Islands, and if not, in some ne#spaper of general circulation in the pro!ince in #hich he had estate. The notice shall recite the su'stance of the facts and reuest set forth in the  petition, the time and place at #hich persons claiming the estate may appear and 'e heard  'efore the court, and sall 7e pu7lise8 at least si9 :ee;s successively , the last of #hich pu'lications shall 'e at least si= #ee3s 'efore the time appointed 'y the court to ma3e inuisition. +-C. 829. %ight of heir& and so forth  subsequently appearing. ; If a de!ise, legatee, heir, #ido#, hus'and, or other  person entitled to such estate, :itin seventeen years fro< te 8ate of suc 8ecree, appears and files a claim #ith the court to such estate, he shall ha!e possession of the same, or if sold, the municipality shall  'e accounta'le to him for the a!ails, after deducting reasona'le charges for the care of the estate< 'ut if a claim is not made #ithin the time mentioned, it shall 'e fore!er  'arred. +ince the notice of pu'lication in a ne#spaper of general circulation did not occu r, the CFI then did not acuire an y urisdiction. *o#e!er, it is also logical that the CFI cannot grant the remedy afforded 'y +ection 829 since the CFI did not effecti!ely ta3e cogni)ance of the escheat case  'ecause of the fatal fla# of not ha!ing the  pu'lication happen. Ne!ertheless, the +C granted the petition and resol!ed that the sum of 023 'e returned 'y the municipality of 7uianga and 'e deposited #ith the cler3 of court for distri'ution among the legal heirs of the deceased TC. #0 /ionisio Rellosa vs. Ga: 'ee un, GR # L1411, )epte<7er "$, 1$52  Spec Pro Doctrine: "scheat proceedings may be used to recover a land illegally owned by an alien. %&'()* On Fe'ruary 9, >5??, ionisio @ellosa sold to 7a# Chee *un a parcel of land, together #ith the house erected thereon, situated in the City of Manila, 0hilippines, for the sum of 092,666. The !endor remained in possession of the property u nder  a contract of lease entered into on the same date  'et#een the same parties. Alleging that the sale #as e=ecuted su'ect to the condition that the !endee, 'eing a Chinese citi)en, #ould o'tain the appro!al of the Japanese Military Administration in accordance #ith (seirei  No.  issued on April 9, >5?4, 'y the Japanese authorities, and said appro!al has not 'een o'tained, and that, e!en if said reuirement #ere met, the sale #ould at all e!ents 'e !oid under article BIII, section 2, of our Constitution. The !endor instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila see3ing the annulment of the sale. The +C applied the In $ari 'elicto rule in the case at 'ar. It also held that the sale in uestion is null and !oid, 'ut plaintiff is 'arred from ta3ing the present action under the $ari 'elicto principle. +))* $hether or not the +C decision of lea!ing  'oth parties in pari delicto creates a dangerous  precedent of allo#ing an alien in o#ning land in our  country. L/* NO. There are at present t#o #ays 'y #hich this situation may 'e remedied, to #it: (> action for re!ersion, and< (9 escheat to the state. An action for re!ersion is slightly different from escheat proceeding, 'ut in its effects they are the same. They only differ in procedure. -scheat  proceedings may 'e instituted as a conseuence of a !iolation of article BIII, section 2 of our Constitution, #hich prohi'its transfers of pri!ate agricultural lands to aliens, #hereas an action for re!ersion is e=pressly authori)ed 'y the 0u'lic &and Act (sections >99, >94, and >9? of Common#ealth Act No. >?>. There are t#o #ays no# open to our go!ernment #here'y it could implement the doctrine of this Court in the /ri!en3o case there'y  putting in force and carrying to its logical conclusion the mandate of our Constitution. %y follo#ing either of these remedies, or 'y appro!ing an implementary la# as a'o!e suggested, #e can enforce the fundamental policy of our Constitution regarding our natural resources #ithout doing !iolence to the principle of pari delicto. #$ R'B' vs. i-(ri /evelopM as do#npayment for the purchase of si= ( lots, #ith the spouses gi!ing Millan the O#ner1s Copies of TCTs of said lots. ue to some o'stacles, the sale did not push through. In effect, the spouses rescinded the sale and offered to return to Millan her do#npayment. *o#e!er, Millan refused to recei!e said amount. Conseuently, the spouses, through their company *iTri, too3 out on Octo'er 9D, >55>, a Manager1s Chec3 from @C%C-rmita in the amount of 0>M (same as the do#npayment amount paya'le to Millan1s company @osmil and used this as one of their 'asis for a complaint against Millan. The +pouses %a3una#a retained custody of @C%C1s Manager1s Chec3 and refrained from cancelling or negotiating it. Millan #as also informed that the Manager1s Chec3 #as a!aila'le for her #ithdra#al, she 'eing the payee. On January, 4>, 9664, #ithout the 3no#ledge of +pouses %a3una#a, @C%C reported the E0>M  credit e=isting in fa!or of @osmil to the %ureau of Treasury as among its Gunclaimed  'alances1H as of the said date. On ecem'er >?, 966, the @epu'lic, through the O+7, filed #ith the @TC the action for -scheat. On April 46, 966D, +pouses %a3una#a settled amica'ly their dispute #ith Millan. The +pouses tried to reco!er the 0>M under Manager1s Chec3 'ut they #ere informed that the amount #as already su'ect of the escheat proceedings 'efore the @TC. The @TC ordered the deposit of the escheated 'alances #ith the Treasurer and credited in fa!or of the @epu'lic. @espondents claim that they #ere not a'le to participate in the trial, as they #ere not informed of the ongoing escheat  proceedings. A motion for reconsideration #as filed,  'ut #as su'seuently denied. The CA re!ersed the @TC ruling,  pronouncing that the @TC Cler3 of Court failed to issue indi!idual notices directed to all persons claiming interest in the unclaimed 'alances. The CA also held that the decision and order of the @TC #ere !oid for #ant of urisdiction. +))* $hether or not the allocated funds may 'e escheated in fa!or of the @epu'lic. L/* NO. 0etitioner ac3no#ledges that the Manager1s Chec3 #as procured 'y respondents, and that the amount to 'e paid for the chec3 #ould 'e sourced from the deposit account of *iTri. $hen @osmil did not accept the Manager1s Chec3 offered 'y respondents, the latter retained custody of the instrument instead of cancelling it. As the Manager1s Chec3 neither #ent to the hands of  @osmil nor #as it further negotiated to other   persons, the instrument remained undeli!ered. 0etitioner does not dispute the fact that respondents retained custody of the instrument. +ince there #as no deli!ery, presentecte8 to esceat procee8ings if left unclaiect of te Manager=s 'ec;, soul8 7e e9clu8e8 fro< te esceat procee8ings.  $e reiterate our  pronouncement that the o'ecti!e of escheat  proceedings is state forfeiture of unclaimed  'alances. $e further note that there is nothing in the records that #ould sho# that the O+7 appe aled the assailed CA udgments. $e ta3e this failure to appeal as an indication of disinterest in pursuing the escheat proceedings in fa!or of the @epu'lic. #1 Repu7lic of te  vs. '%+ of Manila, GR # L-2201, &ugust 2, 1$00  Spec Pro Doctrine: %&'()* 0ursuant to nclaimed %alance &a# (ACT  No. 454, pri!ate respondent for#arded to the Treasurer of the 0hilippines separate statements under oath 'y their respecti!e managing officers of all deposits and credits held 'y them in fa!or, or in the names of such depositors or creditors 3no#n to  'e dead, or #ho ha!e not 'een heard from, or #ho ha!e not made further deposits or #ithdra#als during the preceding ten years or more. pon receipt of these s#orn statements, the Treasurer of the 0hilippines caused the same to 'e pu'lished in t#o ne#spapers of general circulation. The @epu'lic then instituted 'efore the CFI of Manila a complaint for escheat against pri!ate respondent. The lo#er court decided in fa!or of respondent. +)))* ?1@ $hether or not 0res. @o=as @ural %an3 is a real  party in interest in the escheat proceedings. ?"@ $hether or not +ection 9(', @ule ? of the @e!ised @ules of Court on !enue, li3e#ise, go!erns escheat proceedings instituted 'y the @epu'lic in the Court of First Instance of Manila. L/* (> -+ (9 NO The +C denied the petition and stated that +ection 4 of Act No. 454 pro!ides that $hene!er the Attorney 7eneral shall 'e informed of such unclaimed 'alances, he shall commence an action or  actions in the name of the 0eople of the 0hilippines in the Court of First Instance of the pro!ince #here the 'an3 is located& in which shall be joined as  parties the 'an3 and such creditors or depositors. All or any mem'er of such creditors or depositors or   'an3s, may 'e included in one action. A Kreal party in interestK has 'een defined as the  party #ho #ould 'e 'enefitted or inured 'y the  udgment of the suit or the party entitled to a!ail of the suit. There can 'e no dou't that pri!ate respondent 'an3 falls under this definition for the escheat of the dormant deposits in fa!or of the go!ernment #ould necessarily depri!e said 'an3 of the use of such deposits. It is in this sense that it stands to 'e Kinured 'y the udgment of the suit