G.R. No. 188773, September 10, 2014
HEIRS OF VALENTIN BASBAS, et al., Petitioners, vs. RICARDO BASBAS as represented by EUGENIO BASBAS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, the Heirs of Valentin Basbas, filed an Action for Annulment of Title, Reconveyance with Damages before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Santa Rosa, Laguna against Crispiniano Talampas Basbas and respondent Ricardo Talampas Basbas. The action sought to annul Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-294295 issued in the names of Crispiniano and Ricardo covering Lot No. 39 of the Santa Rosa Detached Estate, and to recover possession of the property. Both parties trace their claim of ownership to the decedent Severo Basbas, the original titleholder of Lot No. 39 under Certificate of Title No. RT-1684 (N.A.).
Petitioners allege they are direct descendants of Valentin Basbas, the sole child of Severo Basbas and Ana Rivera. Respondents counter that upon Severo’s death, he was survived by two heirs—Valentin and Nicolas Basbas (paternal grandfather of Crispiniano and Ricardo)—who divided the estate: Lot No. 40 went to Valentin, and Lot No. 39 to Nicolas.
The undisputed facts include: Severo Basbas died on July 14, 1911; Lot No. 39 was originally registered in his name; in 1987, Crispiniano and Ricardo filed a Petition for Reconstitution of Title, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Biñan, Laguna in 1989; and on November 13, 1993, Crispiniano and Ricardo executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate stating that the only heirs of Severo Basbas were Felomino Basbas and Melencio Casubha, leading to the cancellation of TCT No. RT-1684 and issuance of TCT No. T-294295 in their names.
The MTC ruled in favor of petitioners, annulling TCT No. T-294295, ordering reconveyance of Lot No. 39 to petitioners, and directing the Register of Deeds to issue a new title in favor of the heirs of Severo Basbas. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, applying Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario, and held that the declaration of heirship must first be adjudicated in a special proceeding before an action for annulment of title and reconveyance can be resolved.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial courts’ decisions and in ruling that the determination of heirship must first be made in a special proceeding prior to resolving the action for annulment of title and reconveyance.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals decision, and reinstated the rulings of the MTC and RTC.
The Court held that a declaration of heirship is not always required as a precondition for an action to recover property. In an action for annulment of title and reconveyance, where the parties are all heirs of the decedent, the determination of heirship can be made incidentally without a separate special proceeding. The trial courts, in the exercise of their general jurisdiction, may pass upon the issue of heirship if it is preliminary to the resolution of the main action.
The Court found that petitioners sufficiently established their filiation to Severo Basbas through testimonial and documentary evidence, including a Stipulation of Facts during pre-trial confirming that petitioners are direct descendants of Valentin Basbas, who is a son of Severo. In contrast, respondents failed to substantiate their claim of heirship through Nicolas Basbas, as they presented no evidence of Nicolas’s relationship to Severo. The Extra-Judicial Settlement executed by respondents was deemed fraudulent, as it falsely declared Felomino Basbas and Melencio Casubha as the only heirs of Severo, excluding petitioners.
The Court emphasized that rights to succession vest from the moment of the decedent’s death. Since petitioners are the rightful heirs of Severo Basbas, they are entitled to the titling of Lot No. 39 in their names. The Court directed petitioners to take appropriate action for titling the property and to notify the Court within ten days.