Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 496 views

    Gabatan V CA

    Uploaded by

    wesleybooks
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between the heirs of Teofilo Gabatan and Lourdes Evero Pacana, who claimed to have inherited the land from her mother. The RTC ruled in favor of Pacana. The CA affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the determination of the legal heirs of the deceased Juan Gabatan, who originally owned the land, must be resolved in a special proceeding, not a civil case for recovery of property. However, given that both parties had already presented evidence on heirship in the civil case, a separate special proceeding was not necessary in this specific case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gabatan V CA

    Uploaded by

    wesleybooks
    496 views1 page
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between the heirs of Teofilo Gabatan and Lourdes Evero Pacana, who claimed to have inherited the land from her mother. The RTC ruled in favor of Pacana. The CA affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the determination of the legal heirs of the deceased Juan Gabatan, who originally owned the land, must be resolved in a special proceeding, not a civil case for recovery of property. However, given that both parties had already presented evidence on heirship in the civil case, a separate special proceeding was not necessary in this specific case.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Gabatan v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between the heirs of Teofilo Gabatan and Lourdes Evero Pacana, who claimed to have inherited the land from her mother. The RTC ruled in favor of Pacana. The CA affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the determination of the legal heirs of the deceased Juan Gabatan, who originally owned the land, must be resolved in a special proceeding, not a civil case for recovery of property. However, given that both parties had already presented evidence on heirship in the civil case, a separate special proceeding was not necessary in this specific case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    496 views1 page

    Gabatan V CA

    Uploaded by

    wesleybooks
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between the heirs of Teofilo Gabatan and Lourdes Evero Pacana, who claimed to have inherited the land from her mother. The RTC ruled in favor of Pacana. The CA affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the determination of the legal heirs of the deceased Juan Gabatan, who originally owned the land, must be resolved in a special proceeding, not a civil case for recovery of property. However, given that both parties had already presented evidence on heirship in the civil case, a separate special proceeding was not necessary in this specific case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gabatan v CA

    G.R. No. 150206 March 13, 2009


    Heirs of TEOFILO GABATAN, namely: LOLITA GABATAN, POMPEYO GABATAN, PEREGRINO GABATAN, REYNALDO
    GABATAN, NILA GABATAN AND JESUS JABINIS, RIORITA GABATAN TUMALA and FREIRA GABATAN, Petitioners, vs.
    Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and LOURDES EVERO PACANA, Respondents.

    FACTS:
    Respondent Pacana filed an action for Recovery of property and ownership and possession against petitioners,
    heirs of Gabatan. The subject of the controversy is a parcel of land, which was declared for taxation purposes in the
    name of Juan Gabatan.

    Pacana alleged that she is the sole owner, having inherited the land from her mother (only child of Juan Gabatan).
    On the other hand, the Heirs of Gabatan contend that Juan died single, and was survived by his siblings, including
    their predecessor-in-interest. RTC ruled in favor of Pacana. CA affirmed, declaring that Pacana’s claim of filiation
    was sufficiently established during trial.

    ISSUE: WON the civil action for recovery of property was proper NO (this should have been raised in a proper
    special proceeding to determine the legal heirs of the deceased)

    HELD:
    The respondent’s main cause of action in the court a quo is the recovery of ownership and possession of property.
    It is undisputed that the subject property, was owned by the deceased Juan Gabatan, during his lifetime. Before us
    are two contending parties, both insisting to be the legal heir(s) of the decedent.

    The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings in
    court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must take
    precedence over the action for recovery of possession and ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that the
    trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only
    be made in a special proceeding.

    Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues
    another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while a special
    proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.

    It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the
    petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. In the early case of Litam, et al. v. Rivera, this
    Court ruled that the declaration of heirship must be made in a special proceeding, and not in an independent civil
    action.

    However, we are not unmindful of our decision in Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, where the Court relaxed its rule and
    allowed the trial court in a proceeding for annulment of title to determine the status of the party therein as heirs.
    But the Court did not apply this ruling since in the circumstances of the Portugal case, to subject the case to a
    special proceeding would entail longer proceedings and not expeditious.

    In the present case, there appears to be only one parcel of land being claimed by the contending parties as their
    inheritance from Juan Gabatan. It would be more practical to dispense with a separate special proceeding for the
    determination of the status of respondent as the sole heir of Juan Gabatan, specially in light of the fact that the
    parties to Civil Case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the RTC and already presented their evidence regarding
    the issue of heirship in these proceeding. Also the RTC assumed jurisdiction over the same and consequently
    rendered judgment thereon.

    You might also like