5.
Dr. Nixon Reyes v. Antonio Larlar, Rev. Fr. Emilio Larlar, Hedy Larlar, et al .,
G.R. No. 232579, Sept. 08, 2020
FACTS
On May 1, 2008, Rosie Larlar Treyes (Rosie) died intestate, childless, survived by her
husband, Dr. Nixon L. Treyes (petitioner), and seven siblings (private respondents).
At her death, Rosie and petitioner owned 14 real estate parcels as conjugal property.
Self-Adjudication and Registration
o Petitioner executed two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication (Sept. 2, 2008; May 19,
2011) and registered them in Marikina City and San Carlos City.
o As a result, new Torrens titles covering the 14 parcels were issued in petitioner’s
name, excluding Rosie’s siblings.
Correspondence and Discovery
o Beginning Feb. 13, 2012, respondents wrote petitioner requesting an estate
settlement conference, and again on April 3, 2012; petitioner did not respond.
o Respondents discovered the old titles cancelled and new ones issued in
petitioner’s name.
Trial Court Proceedings
o July 12, 2013: respondents filed a Complaint in RTC-1226 for
Annulment of the two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication and cancellation of
corresponding Torrens titles
Reconveyance of respondents’ successional shares
Partition of Rosie’s estate
Moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses
o Petitioner’s first Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 25, 2013) for lack of personal
jurisdiction; later perfected service.
o Second Motion to Dismiss (June 20, 2014) for improper venue, prescription, and
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; RTC denied it on July 15, 2014 but ordered
partition cause of action dropped.
o Petitioner’s Omnibus Motion (July 28, 2014) for reconsideration and to defer
answer; RTC denied (Aug. 27, 2014).
Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
o Petitioner filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with CA; CA denied it (Decision Aug.
18, 2016; Resolution June 1, 2017).
o Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
3) Whether there is a need for prior determination of heirship in a special proceeding prior to
filing an action for recovery of ownership and possession of property
HELD
The court held that the establishment of right of the heirs is conferred by law and there is no need
for judicial confirmation to establish petitioners as heirs. It was already established by the
petitioners that they are heirs ipso facto jure, thus there is no need for any judicial confirmation.
The complaint alleges that their rights over the properties is by virtue of their being siblings of
the decedent.
In Article 777 of the Civil Code, it substantially provides that rights of succession is transmitted
upon the moment of death of the decedent. This much to say that the title or rights is
immediately passed to the heirs upon death. Thus, the heirs have legally been deemed to have
acquired ownership over the estate of the decedent, without need of any declaration
rticle 1001 likewise provides that brothers and sisters or their children who survive with the
widow or widower are entitled to one-half of the inheritance, the other half to the surviving
spouse.
Here, the petitioners have already established their filiation with the decedent and therefore there
is no need for a declaration of heirship through special proceedings. The need to instittue a
sperate special proceeding for determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of
practicaility as when parties in a civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court
and already presented evidence regarding the issue of heirship. Further, in this case, the plaintiffs
do not really seek to establish their right as an heir but seek the enforcement of their rights
brought about them being heirs by operation of law, as provided under Article 777, in relation to
Article 1001 of the Civil Code.