Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 118 views

    Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran

    Uploaded by

    Aices Salvador
    - Jose Q. Portugal married Paz Lazo in 1942 and Isabel de la Puerta in 1948, with whom he had two children, the petitioners. Paz had a daughter, the respondent, in 1950. - After Portugal's death intestate, the respondent executed an affidavit adjudicating herself as sole heir to a parcel of Portugal's land. The petitioners filed a case to annul this. - The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. The CA affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court should evaluate the evidence presented to determine the petitioner's status as heirs rather than subject the estate to further administration. The case was remanded.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran

    Uploaded by

    Aices Salvador
    118 views1 page
    - Jose Q. Portugal married Paz Lazo in 1942 and Isabel de la Puerta in 1948, with whom he had two children, the petitioners. Paz had a daughter, the respondent, in 1950. - After Portugal's death intestate, the respondent executed an affidavit adjudicating herself as sole heir to a parcel of Portugal's land. The petitioners filed a case to annul this. - The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. The CA affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court should evaluate the evidence presented to determine the petitioner's status as heirs rather than subject the estate to further administration. The case was remanded.

    Original Description:

    Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Jose Q. Portugal married Paz Lazo in 1942 and Isabel de la Puerta in 1948, with whom he had two children, the petitioners. Paz had a daughter, the respondent, in 1950. - After Portugal's death intestate, the respondent executed an affidavit adjudicating herself as sole heir to a parcel of Portugal's land. The petitioners filed a case to annul this. - The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. The CA affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court should evaluate the evidence presented to determine the petitioner's status as heirs rather than subject the estate to further administration. The case was remanded.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    118 views1 page

    Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran

    Uploaded by

    Aices Salvador
    - Jose Q. Portugal married Paz Lazo in 1942 and Isabel de la Puerta in 1948, with whom he had two children, the petitioners. Paz had a daughter, the respondent, in 1950. - After Portugal's death intestate, the respondent executed an affidavit adjudicating herself as sole heir to a parcel of Portugal's land. The petitioners filed a case to annul this. - The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. The CA affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled the trial court should evaluate the evidence presented to determine the petitioner's status as heirs rather than subject the estate to further administration. The case was remanded.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran Facts: On November 25, 1942, Jose Q. Portugal (Portugal) married Paz Lazo.

    . On May 22, 1948, Portugal married petitioner Isabel de la Puerta. On September 13, 1949, petitioner Isabel gave birth to a boy whom she named Jose Douglas Portugal Jr., her herein co-petitioner. On April 11, 1950, Paz gave birth to a girl, Aleli, later baptized as Leonila Perpetua Aleli Portugal, herein respondent. On May 16, 1968, Portugal and his four (4) siblings executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition and Waiver of Rights over the estate of their father, Mariano Portugal, who died intestate on November 2, 1964. In the deed, Portugals siblings waived their rights, interests, and participation over a 155 sq. m. parcel of land located in Caloocan in his favor. The Registry of Deeds for Caloocan City issued TCT in the name of Jose Q. Portugal, married to Paz C. Lazo. Paz died. Portugal died intestate. Respondent executed an Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person adjudicating to herself the Caloocan parcel of land. Petitioners then filed before the RTC of Caloocan City a complaint against respondent for annulment of the Affidavit of Adjudication executed by her and the transfer certificate of title issued in her name. RTC, without resolving the issues raised during the pre-trial, dismissed the case for lack of cause of action on the ground that petitioners status and right as putative heirs had not been established before a probate (sic) court, and lack of jurisdiction over the case. CA affirmed. Issue: Held: In the case at bar, respondent, believing rightly or wrongly that she was the sole heir to Portugals estate, executed on February 15, 1988 the questioned Affidavit of Adjudication under the second sentence of Rule 74, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule is an exception to the general rule that when a person dies leaving a property, it should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order established in Sec. 6, Rule 78 in case the deceased left no will, or in case he did, he failed to name an executor therein. A probate or intestate court, no doubt, has jurisdiction to declare who are the heirs of a deceased. In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compelling reason to still subject Portugals estate to administration proceedings since a determination of petitioners status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed by petitioners,[39] the trial court should proceed to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the trial and render a decision thereon upon the issues it defined during pre-trial. Petition granted. Case was remanded to the trial court for it to evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the pre-trial.

    You might also like