G.R. No. 47475 ; May 6, 1942
Donato Lajom, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Jose P. Viola, Rafael Viola, and Silvio Viola, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellant, Donato Lajom, filed an amended complaint alleging he is a natural child, impliedly recognized, of the late Dr. Maximo Viola, born in 1882 to Filomena Lajom. He claimed to have lived with his father and enjoyed the status of a son publicly. A testate proceeding for Dr. Viola’s estate was instituted and closed in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The plaintiff did not intervene in those proceedings because he expected his half-brothers, the defendants and legitimate children of Dr. Viola, to disclose his existence and because they promised to give him his lawful share of the estate. Instead, the defendants allegedly concealed his existence from the probate court, partitioned the estate among themselves, and failed to give him his share. The plaintiff sought a declaration of his status as a natural child and co-heir, and a new partition awarding him one-seventh of the estate. The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija sustained the defendants’ demurrer and dismissed the case, holding the complaint did not state a cause of action for an ordinary civil case as it called for probate jurisdiction, and that it lacked jurisdiction because the will was already probated in Bulacan.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija had jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s action.
2. Whether the amended complaint stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court.
1. On Jurisdiction: The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija had jurisdiction. The complaint alleged the plaintiff and one defendant were residents of Nueva Ecija, and it contained allegations of a breach of trust and violation of a promise by the defendants to give the plaintiff his share. These allegations, if proven, constituted an equitable action for breach of trust that could be brought in Nueva Ecija where the plaintiff resided, pursuant to procedural rules. This action would not require revisiting the Bulacan court’s partition order, as the trust could be enforced by compelling the defendants to convey the plaintiff’s share from their respective portions under that partition.
2. On Sufficiency of Cause of Action: The amended complaint did state a cause of action. The allegations, deemed admitted by the demurrer, presented a claim in equity. The defendants, by allegedly promising to give the plaintiff his share and then concealing his existence to obtain sole legal title, would hold that title in trust for the plaintiff. Equity would compel them to execute that trust by conveying the property. The action was not merely one for declaration of heirship requiring probate jurisdiction; it was an independent action to enforce a trust arising from the defendants’ fraudulent conduct and promise. The Court also noted that the action, being based on an implied recognition under the old Law of Toro, was filed within the applicable prescriptive period, as less than six years had passed since the father’s death and prescription was not raised as a defense.