Treyes VS Larlar

DR. NIXON L. TREYES vs. ANTONIO L.
LARLAR
GR. No. 232579
September 8, 2020
CASE DIGEST
Facts:
Rosie Larlar Treyes, the wife of petitioner Dr. Nixon L. Treyes passed away
without issue and without a will. He left behind her husband, Dr. Nixon and her
seven siblings.
Rosie Treyes left behind 14 real estate properties considered as their
conjugal properties with the petitioner-husband.
After Rosie’s demise, Dr. Treyes executed two affidavits of Self-
Adjudication. Both were registered with the Registry of Deeds. In the two
Affidavits of Self-Adjudication, petitioner Treyes transferred all the estates of
Rosie unto himself, claiming to be the sole heir of the decedent Rosie.
The siblings of Rosie sent petitioner Treyes a letter request for a conference
to discuss the settlement of the estate of their deceased sister Rosie, but this said
request was unheeded.
The siblings, the private respondents in this case alleged that they discovered
new titles issued to the petitioner by virtue of the two Affidavits of Self-
Adjudication the petitioner executed. Consequently, the private respondents filed
before the RTC a complaint for the annulment of the affidavits of Self-
Adjudication alleging that the petitioner fraudulently caused the transfer of the
subject properties to his name through the two affidavits he executed and refused
to reconvey the shares of the siblings in the estate, being the legal heirs of the
deceased.
Of the four causes of action: 1) Annulment of the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication; 2) Reconveyance; 3) Partition; and 4) Damages, the RTC held that it
had not acquired jurisdiction over the third cause of action and hence, should be
dropped from the case.
Unsatisfied by the Resolution of the RTC, Treyes filed an Omnibus Motion
with the RTC but was denied. Hence, he filed the before the Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC.
The CA denied the petition. It reasoned out that since the complaint seeks to
annul the Affidavit Self-adjudication, the RTC has the jurisdiction to hear and
decide the private respondents’ complaint since it partakes the nature of an
ordinary civil action. However Treyes maintained that the determination of the
status of the legal heirs in a separate proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary suit
for the recovery of ownership and possession of property instituted by the legal
heirs.
Issues:
Whether the prior determination of the status as a legal or compulsory heir in
a separate special proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary civil action seeking
for the protection and enforcement of ownership rights given by the law on
succession
Whether or not the CA was correct in ruling that the RTC did not commit
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
denied Treyes second motion to dismiss
Ruling:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and
determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement
of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action.
In filing of the complaint, the private respondents did not seek to have their
rights as intestate heir established for the simple reason that the law had already
established that right. What they seek is the enforcement and protection of their
rights granted under Article 1001 in relation to Article 777 of the Civil Code by
asking for the nullification of the Affidavits of the Self-Adjudication which denied
and disregarded their rights as intestate heirs.
The court ruled that a prior declaration of heirship in a special proceeding
should not be required before an heir may assert successional rights in an ordinary
civil action aimed only to protect the heirs’ interests in the estate. The legal heirs of
the decedent should not be rendered helpless to rightfully protect their interests in
the estate while there is yet no special proceeding, as the successional rights of the
legal heirs vest upon the death of the decedent. Their being legal heirs entitle them
to institute an action to protect their ownership rights acquired by virtue of
succession and are thus real parties in interest.
The further rule therefore is, unless there is a pending special proceeding for
the settlement of the decedent’s estate or for the determination of heirship, the
compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an ordinary civil action to declare the
nullity of a deed or instrument , and for recovery of property, or any other action in
the enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, without
necessity of a prior and separate judicial declaration of their status as such.
The Court is in total agreement with the CA that the RTC did not commit
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying
petitioner Treyes’s Motion to dismiss.
SUMODIO-IMPUESTO, CANDELARIA D.
JD-REFRESHER

Treyes VS Larlar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treyes VS Larlar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treyes VS Larlar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DR. NIXON L. TREYES vs. ANTONIO L.

You might also like