Rule 72 – Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules 3.

3. Thereafter, the petitioners and persons (unidentified in the case) whom they knew as
G.R. 162956 – Reyes Esperidon v. Enriquez the heirs of Anacleto executed a Segregation of Real Estate and Confirmation of Sale
PUNO, C.J. over the same property, which resulted in various TCTs being issued in the name of the
petitioners, Anacleto, a certain Archimedes Villaluz and another person named Felipe
Petitioners claim to be the lawful heirs of Dionisia Reyes, co-owner of a subject parcel of Dico.
land located in Talisay, Cebu, the other owner of the land being Anacleto Cabrera. RESPONDENTS (Peter Enriquez and Deborah Enriquez) CLAIM THE FOLLOWING:
Meanwhile, respondents, Peter Enriquez and Deborah Enriquez (husband and daughter of 1. They are the predecessor-in-interest of Anacleto Cabrera.
Etta Cabrera-Enriquez respectively), claim to be the heirs of Anacleto Cabrera, Etta's father. a. Peter's wife, Etta (Deborah's mother) is the daughter of Anacleto
Enriquez and his daughter Deborah sold a part of their alleged portion of the property to Sps. Cabrera.
Fernandez. When the latter tried to register their share in the land, they discovered that b. Etta's sister, Graciana, sold her portion to Etta during her lifetime.
certain documents, due to the ownership of the heirs of Dionisia Reyes, barred them from c. Thus, Etta is the sole owner of the one-half share of the subject parcel of
doing so. Respondents filed a complaint for annulment/ nullification of such documents and land.
prayed for the repartition and re-subdivision of the property. RTC dismissed the case upon d. Etta died and the property passed on to respondents by virtue of an
motion of the plaintiffs on the ground that what the respondents were seeking were to be Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate.
declared legal heirs of Anacleto Cabrera – something which cannot be done in an ordinary e. The respondents subsequently sold a portion of the subject land to the
civil action, as in this case, but through a special proceeding specifically instituted for the Sps. Ferndandez.
purpose. The CA reversed the RTC. The SC reversed the CA and reinstated the RTC ruling, 2. When the Sps. Fernandez tried to register their share in the subject land, they
holding that since the respondents seek to establish a right or status, the proper remedy is discovered that they were barred from doing so due to a couple of documents:
a special proceeding. a. Affidavit by Anacleto stating that his share in the property is only 369
sq.m.
DOCTRINE b. Affidavit by Dionisia stating that Anacleto only owned 1/3 of the lot while
An ordinary civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or 302.55 sq.m. belongs to Dionisia and the remaining is co-owned by
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A special proceeding, on the Nicolasa Bacalso, Juan Reyes, Florentino Reyes, Maximiano Dico
other hand, is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular c. Extrajudicial settlement with sale of Dionisia's Estate
fact d. Certificates of title in the name of the petitioners herein
e. Deed of segregation of the real estate and confirmation of sale
The Rules of Court provide that only a real party in interest is allowed to prosecute and 3. Alleging that the foregoing documents are fraudulent and fictitious, respondents
defend an action in court. A real party in interest is the one who stands to be benefited or filed a complaint for annulment or nullification of the aforementioned documents
injured by the judgment in the suit or the one entitled to the avails thereof. Such interest, to and for damages. They also prayed for "repartition and resubdivision".
be considered a real interest, must be one which is present and substantial, as 4. The RTC held in favor of the petitioners and dismissed the case filed by the
distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or respondents on the ground that respondents should first be declared as legal heirs
consequential interest. in a special proceeding before they can have any right to institute the foregoing
ordinary civil action.
A plaintiff is a real party in interest when he is the one who has a legal right to enforce or 5. However, the CA reversed the RTC.
protect. In this case, the respondents have to prove that they have such legal right before 6. Hence this petition.
they can properly institute the ordinary civil action they filed herein. They can establish such
legal right through a special proceeding. ISSUE with HOLDING
1. Whether or not the respondents have to institute a special proceeding first to determine
The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in the their status as Anacleto's heirs before they can an ordinary civil action to nullify the
proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. mentioned documents and repartition the land. – YES.
This must take precedence over the action for reconveyance a. An ordinary civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
FACTS A special proceeding, on the other hand, is a remedy by which a party seeks
1. Dionisia Reyes (Dionisia) co-owned a parcel of land with Anacleto Cabrera (Anacleto). to establish a status, a right or a particular fact.
b. The Rules of Court provide that only a real party in interest is allowed to
PETITIONERS CLAIM THE FOLLOWING: prosecute and defend an action in court.
1. Dionisia had the following lawful heirs (which are the petitioners in this case): c. A real party in interest is the one who stands to be benefited or injured by the
a. Faustino Reyes judgment in the suit or the one entitled to the avails thereof.
b. Esperidon Reyes i. A plaintiff is a real party in interest when he is the one who has a
c. Julieta Rivera legal right to enforce or protect
d. Eutico Dico, Jr. ii. A defendant is a real party in interest when he is the one who has
2. The petitioners executed an Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of the Estate of Dionisia. a correlative legal obligation to redress a wrong done to the plaintiff

1
 by reason of the defendant's act or omission which had violated the Realty Corporation on the ground that the subject properties rightfully belong to
legal right of the former. the petitioners' predecessor and by virtue of succession have passed on to them.
d. Such interest, to be considered a real interest, must be one which is present In affirming the trial court therein, this Court ruled then that plaintiffs who claimed
and substantial, as distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, to be the legal heirs of the said Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay have not shown any
contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. Thus, a plaintiff's right proof or even a semblance of it — except the allegations that they are the legal
to institute an ordinary civil action should be based on his own right to the heirs of the aforementioned Yaptinchays — that they have been declared the legal
relief sought. heirs of the deceased couple. Now, the determination of who are the legal heirs
e. This Court has consistently ruled that a declaration of heirship is improper of the deceased couple must be made in the proper special proceedings in
in an ordinary civil action since the matter is "within the exclusive court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. This must
competence of the court in a special proceeding". take precedence over the action for reconveyance.
f. In the instant case, while the complaint was denominated as an action for the
g. "Declaration of Non-Existency[sic], Nullity of Deeds, and Cancellation of
Certificates of Title, etc., the allegations therein reveal that the right being
asserted by the respondents are their right as heirs of Anacleto Cabrera
who they claim co-owned one-half of the subject property and not merely one-
fourth as stated in the documents the respondents sought to annul.
h. Respondents herein, except for their allegations, still need to support their
DIGESTER:
claim that they are indeed the legal heirs of Anacleto and are therefore entitled
to the property in question.
i. There is nothing in the records of the case which would show that a special
proceeding wherein the respondents were declared to be legal heirs have
been instituted. There is therefore a need to establish their heirship in the
proper forum.
j. Thus, the trial court correctly dismissed the case for there is a lack of cause
of action when a case is instituted by parties who are not real parties in
interest.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby REVERSED and the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated June 29, 2000
DISMISSING the complaint is REINSTATED

OTHER NOTES
Recent cases which this case cited in its ratio:

1. Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran held that where special proceedings had been

Note: though in Portugal, the Court held that it would be superfluous to subject the
estate to a special proceeding since the status as heirs could be achieved in the
ordinary civil case filed, this was due to the fact that there was only one property
left by the decedent and the parties therein have already presented evidence to
establish their rights as heirs. In the case at hand however, the respondents did
not present any evidence to establish heir rights as heirs.

2. Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay v. Hon. Roy del Rosario: In the said case, the petitioners
therein, claiming to be the legal heirs of the late Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay, filed
for annulment of the transfer certificates of title issued in the name of Golden Bay