G.R. No. 232579 , September 8, 2020
DR. NIXON L. TREYES, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO L. LARLAR, REV. FR. EMILIO L. LARLAR, HEDDY L. LARLAR, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Rosie Larlar Treyes died intestate in 2008, survived by her husband, petitioner Dr. Nixon Treyes, and her seven siblings, the private respondents. Rosie left fourteen conjugal properties. Petitioner executed two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication, claiming to be the sole heir, and caused the transfer of the properties to his name. The respondents, alleging to be co-heirs, filed a Complaint for Annulment of Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, Cancellation of Titles, Reconveyance, Partition, and Damages before the RTC.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. He contended that the respondents must first establish their status as legal heirs in a separate special proceeding for the settlement of estate, citing jurisprudence like Heirs of Ypon v. Ricaforte. The RTC denied the motion, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether an ordinary civil action for annulment of title, reconveyance, and partition requires a prior and separate judicial declaration of heirship in a special proceeding.

RULING

The ponencia (majority) denied the petition, ruling to abandon the precedent requiring a prior special proceeding for declaration of heirship. It held that such a requirement is impractical and causes undue delay, and that the respondents’ status as siblings, evidenced by attached birth certificates, can be provisionally determined within the ordinary civil action to resolve the issues of ownership and fraud.
Justice Gesmundo, in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred in the result (denial of the petition) but dissented from the abandonment of the established rule. He argued that the rule requiring a special proceeding for the declaration of heirship serves essential purposes: it provides a single, authoritative, and binding proceeding for the determination of all heirs and their shares, ensuring finality and stability of titles. Allowing provisional determinations in ordinary actions risks conflicting decisions from different courts on the same issue of heirship. He emphasized that the nature of the action—being one for partition which inherently requires a determination of co-ownership and respective shares—still necessitates a prior settlement of the estate in a special proceeding to properly identify the heirs and the estate properties. Thus, while he agreed the petition should be denied on other grounds, he maintained the doctrinal rule should be preserved for orderly judicial administration.