G.R. No. 198680. July 8, 2013.

HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON, namely, ALVARO

YPON, ERUDITA Y. BARON, CICERO YPON, WILSON
YPON, VICTOR YPON, and HINIDINO Y. PEÑALOSA,
petitioners, vs. GAUDIOSO PONTERAS RICAFORTE
a.k.a. “GAUDIOSO E. YPON,” and THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS of TOLEDO CITY, respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Cause of Action; Words and

Phrases; Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which
a party violates a right of another.   It is well-settled that the
existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in
the complaint.―Cause of action is defined as the act or omission
by which a party violates a right of another. It is well-settled that
the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations
in the complaint. In this relation, a complaint is said to assert a
sufficient cause of action if, admitting what appears solely on its
face to be correct, the

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

779

VOL. 700, JULY 8, 2013 779

Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte

plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for. Accordingly, if

the allegations furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can
be maintained, the same should not be dismissed, regardless of
the defenses that may be averred by the defendants.
Same; Civil Law; Succession; Matters relating to the rights of
filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the proper probate
court in a special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of
determining such rights.―In the case of Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan
v. CA, 581 SCRA 70 (2009), the Court, citing several other
precedents, held that the determination of who are the decedent’s
lawful heirs must be made in the proper special proceeding for
such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of
ownership and/or possession, as in this case: Jurisprudence
dictates that 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. This doctrine
was reiterated in Solivio v. Court of Appeals x  x  x: In the more
recent case of Milagros Joaquino v. Lourdes Reyes, the Court
reiterated its ruling that matters relating to the rights of
filiation and heirship must be ventilated in the proper
probate court in a special proceeding instituted precisely
for the purpose of determining such rights. Citing the case
of Agapay v. Palang, this Court held that the status of an
illegitimate child who claimed to be an heir to a decedent’s estate
could not be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action which, as in
this case, was for the recovery of property.

780

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte

Same; Same; By way of exception, the need to institute a

separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship may
be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when the parties
in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial
court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of
heirship, and the Regional Trial Court had consequently rendered
judgment thereon, or when a special proceeding had been
instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, and hence,
cannot be re-opened.―By way of exception, the need to institute a
separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship may
be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when the parties
in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial
court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of
heirship, and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment
thereon, or when a special proceeding had been instituted but had
been finally closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-
opened. In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or those of
similar nature, appear to exist. Hence, there lies the need to
institute the proper special proceeding in order to determine the
heirship of the parties involved, ultimately resulting to the
dismissal of Civil Case No. T-2246.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the orders of the

Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Br. 59.
   The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
  TLCM Law Firm for petitioners.
  Dinopol, Malaya, Orcullo & Sandoval Law Office for
respondent.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is a direct recourse to the Court from the Regional
Trial Court of Toledo City, Branch 59 (RTC), through a
petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules
ofCourt, raising a pure question of law. In particular,
petition-

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-25.

781

VOL. 700, JULY 8, 2013 781

Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte

ers assail the July 27, 20112 and August 31, 20113 Orders
of the RTC, dismissing Civil Case No. T-2246 for lack of
cause of action.
The Facts
On July 29, 2010, petitioners, together with some of
their cousins,4 filed a complaint for Cancellation of Title
and Reconveyance with Damages (subject complaint)
against respondent Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte a.k.a.
“Gaudioso E. Ypon” (Gaudioso), docketed as Civil Case No.
T-2246.5 In their complaint, they alleged that Magdaleno
Ypon (Magdaleno) died intestate and childless on June 28,
1968, leaving behind Lot Nos. 2-AA, 2-C, 2-F, and 2-J
which were then covered by Transfer Certificates of Title
(TCT) Nos. T-44 and T-77-A.6

_______________
2 Id., at pp. 28-30. Penned by Judge Hermes B. Montero.
3 Id., at p. 31.
4 Id., at p. 32. The plaintiffs in Civil Case No. T-2246 are as follows:
Francisca Y. Trilla, Elena Yntig, Cerelo Ypon, Esterlita Y. Sereño, Alvaro
Ypon, Rogelio Ypon, Simplico Ypon, Jr., Monaliza B. Judilla, Lilia B.
Quinada, Teodora A. Baron, Teofilo Ypon, Mauricio Ypon, Vicente Ypon,
Pabling Ypon and Diega Ypon, Erudita Baron, Cristobal Ypon, Elizabeth
Ypon, Francisco Ypon, Lolita Y. Gamao, Egnacia Y. Cavada, Serafin Ypon,
Victor Ypon, Prudencio Ypon, Jr., Allan Ypon, Raul Ypon, Rey Rufo Ypon,
Galicursi Ypon, Minda Y. Libre, Moises Ypon, Jr., Bethoven Ypon, Divina
A. Sanchez, Cicero Ypon, Minerva Ypon, Lucinita Ypon, Crisolina Y.
Tingal, Jessica Ypon, Nonoy Ypon, Wilson Ypon, Arthur Ypon, Yolanda
Ypon, Lilia Y. Cordero, Ester Y. Hinlo, Lydia Ypon, Percival Ypon,
Esmeralda Y. Baron, Emelita Y. Chiong, Victor Ypon, Primitivo Ypon,
Jr., Pura Ypon, Ma. Nila Ypon, Roy Ipon, Eric Ypon, Henry Ypon, Felipa
Ypon, Vivian Ypon, Hilarion Peñalosa, Angeles D. Libre, Clarita P. Lopez,
Vicente Y. Peñalosa, Jr., Columbus Y. Peñalosa, Jose Y. Peñalosa, Alberto
Y. Peñalosa, Teodoro Y. Peñalosa, Louella P. Madraga, Pomelo Y.
Peñalosa, and Agnes P. Villora. (In boldface are the names of the plaintiffs
who are also petitioners in this case.)
5 Id., at pp. 32-39.
6 Id., at p. 33.

782

782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte

Claiming to be the sole heir of Magdaleno, Gaudioso

executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and caused the
cancellation of the aforementioned certificates of title,
leading to their subsequent transfer in his name under
TCT Nos. T-2637 and T-2638,7 to the prejudice of
petitioners who are Magdaleno’s collateral relatives and
successors-in-interest.8
In his Answer, Gaudioso alleged that he is the lawful
son of Magdaleno as evidenced by: (a) his certificate of Live
Birth; (b) two (2) letters from Polytechnic School; and (c) a
certified true copy of his passport.9 Further, by way of
affirmative defense, he claimed that: (a) petitioners have
no cause of action against him; (b) the complaint fails to
state a cause of action; and (c) the case is not prosecuted by
the real parties-in-interest, as there is no showing that the
petitioners have been judicially declared as Magdaleno’s
lawful heirs.10
The RTC Ruling
On July 27, 2011, the RTC issued the assailed July 27,
2011 Order,11 finding that the subject complaint failed to
state a cause of action against Gaudioso. It observed that
while the plaintiffs therein had established their
relationship with Magdaleno in a previous special
proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration,12
this did not mean that they could already be considered as
the decedent’s compulsory heirs. Quite the contrary,
Gaudioso satisfactorily established the fact that he is
Magdaleno’s son — and hence, his compulsory heir —
through the documentary evidence he submitted

_______________
7  Id., at p. 34.
8  Id.
9  Id., at pp. 53-54.
10 Id., at p. 54.
11 Id., at pp. 28-30.
12  Id., at p. 69. Docketed as Sp. Pro. No. 608-T. Entitled “In Re:
Petition for Issuance of Letter of Administration, Minda Ypon Libre,
Cristobal E. Ypon, and Agnes P. Veloria, petitioners v. City Registrar of
Deeds and City Assessor of the City of Toledo, respondents.”

783

VOL. 700, JULY 8, 2013 783

Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte

which consisted of: (a) a marriage contract between

Magdaleno and Epegenia Evangelista; (b) a Certificate of
Live Birth; (c) a Letter dated February 19, 1960; and (d) a
passport.13
The plaintiffs therein filed a motion for reconsideration
which was, however, denied on August 31, 2011 due to the
counsel’s failure to state the date on which his Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education Certificate of Compliance was
issued.14
Aggrieved, petitioners, who were among the plaintiffs in
Civil Case No. T-2246,15 sought direct recourse to the Court
through the instant petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The core of the present controversy revolves around the
issue of whether or not the RTC’s dismissal of the case on
the ground that the subject complaint failed to state a
cause of action was proper.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by
which a party violates a right of another.16 It is well-settled
that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the
allegations in the complaint.17 In this relation, a complaint
is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting
what appears solely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff
would be entitled

_______________
13 Id., at p. 30.
14 Id., at p. 31.
 15  Based on the records, it appears that only petitioner Hinidino Y.
Peñalosa was not a complainant in Civil Case No. T-2246.
16 See Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
17  Peltan Development, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (CA), 336 Phil. 824,
833; 270 SCRA 82, 91 (1997).

784

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte

to the relief prayed for.18 Accordingly, if the allegations

furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be
maintained, the same should not be dismissed, regardless
of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants.19
As stated in the subject complaint, petitioners, who were
among the plaintiffs therein, alleged that they are the
lawful heirs of Magdaleno and based on the same, prayed
that the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by
Gaudioso be declared null and void and that the transfer
certificates of title issued in the latter’s favor be cancelled.
While the foregoing allegations, if admitted to be true,
would consequently warrant the reliefs sought for in the
said complaint, the rule that the determination of a
decedent’s lawful heirs should be made in the
corresponding special proceeding20 precludes the RTC, in
an ordinary action for cancellation of title and
reconveyance, from granting the same. In the case of Heirs
of Teofilo Gabatan v. CA,21 the Court, citing several other
precedents, held that the determination of who are the
decedent’s lawful heirs must be made in the proper special
proceeding for such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for
recovery of ownership and/or possession, as in this case:

_______________
18 Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Judge, Regional Trial Court Davao
City, Branch 8, G.R. No. 147058, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 272, 281.
19 The Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. CA, 274 Phil. 947, 955;
197 SCRA 663, 669 (1991).
20 Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court partly provides:
SEC. 1. When order for distribution of reside made.—
x x x x
If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs
of the deceased person or as the distributive shares to which each person
is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in
ordinary cases.
21 G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 70.

785
 VOL. 700, JULY 8, 2013 785
Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte

Jurisprudence dictates that 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.
This doctrine was reiterated in Solivio v. Court of Appeals
x x x:
In the more recent case of Milagros Joaquino v. Lourdes
Reyes, the Court reiterated its ruling that matters
relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be
ventilated in the proper probate court in a special
proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of
determining such rights. Citing the case of Agapay v.
Palang, this Court held that the status of an illegitimate
child who claimed to be an heir to a decedent’s estate could
not be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action which, as in
this case, was for the recovery of property.22 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

_______________
22 Id., at pp. 78-80.

786

786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte

By way of exception, the need to institute a separate

special proceeding for the determination of heirship may be
dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when the
parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue
to the trial court and already presented their evidence
regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had
consequently rendered judgment thereon,23 or when a
special proceeding had been instituted but had been finally
closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened.24
In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or those of
similar nature, appear to exist. Hence, there lies the need
to institute the proper special proceeding in order to
determine the heirship of the parties involved, ultimately
resulting to the dismissal of Civil Case No. T-2246.
Verily, while a court usually focuses on the complaint in
determining whether the same fails to state a cause of
action, a court cannot disregard decisions material to the
proper

_______________
23 Id., at pp. 80-81. “[When] there appears to be only one parcel of land
being claimed by the contending parties as their inheritance x  x  x [i]t
would be more practical to dispense with a separate special proceeding for
the determination of the status of respondent as the sole heir x  x  x
specially [when the parties to the civil case had] voluntarily submitted the
issue to the RTC and already presented their evidence regarding the issue
of heirship in these proceedings [and] the RTC [had] assumed jurisdiction
over the same and consequently rendered judgment thereon.”
24 “Where special proceedings had been instituted but had been finally
closed and terminated, however, or if a putative heir has lost the right to
have himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and he can no
longer ask for its re-opening, then an ordinary civil action can be filed for
his declaration as heir in order to bring about the annulment of the
partition or distribution or adjudication of a property or properties
belonging to the estate of the deceased.” (Republic v. Mangotara, G.R. No.
170375, July 07, 2010, 624 SCRA 360, 443, citing Portugal v. Portugal-
Beltran, G.R. No. 155555, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 184-189).

787

VOL. 700, JULY 8, 2013 787

Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte

appreciation of the questions before it.25 Thus, concordant

with applicable jurisprudence, since a determination of
heirship cannot be made in an ordinary action for recovery
of ownership and/or possession, the dismissal of Civil Case
No. T-2246 was altogether proper. In this light, it must be
pointed out that the RTC erred in ruling on Gaudioso’s
heirship which should, as herein discussed, be threshed out
and determined in the proper special proceeding. As such,
the foregoing pronouncement should therefore be devoid of
any legal effect.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The dismissal
of Civil Case No. T-2246 is hereby AFFIRMED, without
 prejudice to any subsequent proceeding to determine the
lawful heirs of the late Magdaleno Ypon and the rights
concomitant therewith.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez and

Mendoza,**  JJ., concur.

Petition denied, dismissal of Civil Case No. T-2246

affirmed.

Notes.―It is settled, then, in law and jurisprudence,

that the status and filiation of a child cannot be
compromised. (Uy vs. Chua, 600 SCRA 806 [2009])
The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from
the moment of his death; The inheritance of a person
consists of the property and transmissible rights and
obligations existing at the time of his death as well as those
which have accrued thereto since the opening of the
succession. (Balus vs. Balus, 610 SCRA 178 [2010])
――o0o―― 

_______________
25 Peltan Development, Inc. v. CA, supra note 17, at p. 834; p. 92.
**  Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1484 dated July
9, 2013.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.