G.R. No. 48140 ; May 4, 1942
SINFOROSO PASCUAL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PONCIANO S. PASCUAL, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On September 14, 1940, while the probate proceedings for the will of Eduarda de los Santos were pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, plaintiff Sinforoso Pascual (a legitimate child of the deceased) filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga against defendants Ponciano S. Pascual and others (also legitimate children of the deceased) for the annulment of a contract of sale of a fishpond in Lubao, Pampanga. The complaint alleged the sale was executed without consideration by the deceased in her lifetime in favor of the defendants. All parties were residents of Malabon, Rizal. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of want of cause of action, limitation of action, wrong venue, and pendency of another action. The trial court granted the motion, holding the action should have been brought by the executor or administrator of the estate, and directed plaintiff to amend his complaint within five days. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding that defendant Miguel S. Pascual had been appointed testamentary executor by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in the testate proceedings. The trial court held this amendment did not cure the complaint’s insufficiency and dismissed the action. Plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the plaintiff, as an heir, has the legal standing to institute the action for annulment/recovery of property allegedly belonging to the estate, or if such action must be brought exclusively by the executor/administrator.
2. Whether the venue (Court of First Instance of Pampanga) was improperly laid.
3. Whether the action is unnecessary because the issue could be raised and decided in the pending probate proceedings.

RULING

1. On Legal Standing: Under Rule 86, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, actions for the recovery or protection of property or rights of the deceased for causes that survive must be prosecuted or defended by the executor or administrator. Heirs generally have no standing in such actions except when the executor or administrator is unwilling or fails to act, in which case the heirs may act in his place. Here, the alleged fictitious sale was made to the defendants, one of whom (Miguel S. Pascual) is the appointed executor. It is implied that such an executor would not bring an action against himself for recovery of the property; therefore, his refusal to act may be implied, bringing the case under the exception. The complaint’s prayer for the fishpond to be delivered to the executor indicates the action is brought on behalf of the estate. Thus, the plaintiff has standing.
2. On Venue: The appellees argued the action for annulment of a contract of sale is a personal action that must be commenced at the residence of either plaintiff or defendant (both in Rizal), not in Pampanga. The Court held that since the sale is alleged to be fictitious and without any consideration, it should be regarded as a non-existent contract, not merely a voidable one. Consequently, there is nothing to annul. The true action is one for the recovery of the fishpond, a real action, which under Rule 5, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, must be brought in the province where the property is located—Pampanga. Therefore, the venue was proper.
3. On Propriety of a Separate Action: The general rule is that questions of title to property cannot be adjudicated in testate proceedings. However, the Court held that when, as here, all interested parties are heirs of the deceased claiming title under him, the question of whether a transfer by the deceased is fictitious may properly be raised by motion in the testate proceedings on or before the distribution of the estate. This procedure is optional. The parties may choose to bring a separate action as a matter of convenience in the preparation or presentation of evidence. Therefore, the action brought by the appellant was not improper.
DISPOSITIVE:
The order of dismissal is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs against appellees.