Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

The spouses Cornelia Pizarro and Baltazar Garcia, during their lifetime, were residents of Davao City. As they were childless, they adopted a three-year old girl whom they named Dominga Garcia and brought up as their own. At the age of nineteen years, Dominga Garcia married a Chinaman, Tan Seng alias Seng Yap, with whom she had three children, named Vicenta, who was born in 1916, Mariano who was born in 1918, and Luis who was born in 1921. In 1923, Dominga Garcia and her three children emigrated to Canton, China. Accordingly, Dominga died intestate and left a lot in Davao City but neither her husband nor her children returned to the Philippines to claim the lot.

 

After Dominga’s adoptive parent, Cornelia Pizarro died, the latter’s nephew, Ramon Pizarro occupied a part of Dominga’s property and collected the rentals from the owners of other houses occupying the land. Another nephew, in a burst of civic spirit, informed the Solicitor General about the property, which led to the investigation of the City Fiscal and NBI.

 

The City of Davao filed then a petition in the Court of First Instance of Davao to declare Dominga Garcia's land escheated in its favor. It alleged that Dominga Garcia and her children are presumed to be dead and since Dominga Garcia left no heir person by law entitled to inherit her estate, the same should be escheated pursuant to Rule 92 of the Rules of Court.

 

The court set the petition for hearing and directed the City to cause the publication of its petition in the 'Mindanao Times," a newspaper of general circulation in the city and province of Davao, and in the Official Gazette, once a week for six (6) consecutive weeks.

 

Pizarro filed a motion to dismiss but to no avail. Trial Court rendered a decision that Dominga’s property and its rentals shall escheat and the same are assigned to the City of Davao for the benefit of public schools and public charitable institutions and centers in the said city. On appeal, CA affirmed the appealed decision of the trial court. Hence, Vicenta Tan and/or her attorney-in-fact, Ramon Pizarro, appealed by petition for certiorari to the SC, alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the city of Davao had personality to file the escheat petition.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the City of Davao had personality to file the escheat petition.

 

HELD:

Yes. The City of Davao had a personality to file the escheat petition. With respect to the argument that only the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor-General, may file the escheat petition under Section 1, Rule 91 of the Revised (1964) Rules of Court, the Appellate Court correctly ruled that the case did not come under Rule 91 because the petition was filed on September 12,1962, when the applicable rule was still Rule 92 of the 1940 Rules of Court which provided:

 

Sec. 1. When and by whom,petition filed.—When a person dies intestate, seized of real or personal property in the Philippines, leaving no heirs or person by law entitled to the same, the municipality or city where the deceased last resided, if he resided in the Philippines, or the municipality or city in which he had estate if he resided out of the Philippines, may file a petition in the court of first instance of the province setting forth the facts, and praying that the estate of the deceased be declared escheated.

 

Rule 91 of the Revised rules of Court, which provides that only the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, may commence escheat proceedings, did not take effect until January 1, 1964. Although the escheat proceedings were still pending then, the Revised Rules of Court could not be applied to the petition because to do so would work injustice to the City of Davao. Rule 144 of the 1964 Rules of Court contains this "saving" clause:

 

These rules shall take effect on January 1, 1964. They shall govern all cases brought after they take effect, and also all further proceedings in cases pending, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former procedure shall apply.