Matas, Faye Allen A.

- BSA3C

G.R. No. 143483

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF

PASAY CITY, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER 3RD DIVISION), Respondents.

NATURE OF THE CASE

GR 143483 is a petition for certiorari seeks to nullify two (2) Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals dated 12 November 1998 and 4 May 2000 giving due course to the petition for
annulment of judgment filed by private respondent Amada H. Solano on 3 February 1997
and denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

FACTS
For more than three (3) decades (from 1952 to 1985) private respondent Amada Solano
served as the all-around personal domestic helper of the late Elizabeth Hankins, a widow
and a French national. During Ms. Hankins' lifetime and most especially during the waning
years of her life, respondent Solano was her faithful girl Friday and a constant companion
since no close relative was available to tend to her needs.

In recognition of Solano's faithful and dedicated service, Ms. Hankins executed in her
favor two (2) deeds of donation involving two (2) parcels of land covered by TCT Nos.
7807 and 7808 of the Registry of Deeds. Private respondent alleged that she misplaced
the deeds of donation and were nowhere to be found. While the deeds of donation were
missing, the Republic filed a petition for the escheat of the estate of Elizabeth Hankins
before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. During the proceedings, a motion for
intervention was filed by Romeo Solano, spouse of private respondent, and one
Gaudencio Regosa, but on 24 June 1987 the motion was denied by the trial court for the
reason that "they miserably failed to show valid claim or right to the properties in question.”
Since it was established that there were no known heirs and persons entitled to the
properties of decedent Hankins, the lower court escheated the estate of the decedent in
favor of petitioner Republic of the Philippines.

By virtue of the decision of the trial court, the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City cancelled
TCT Nos. 7807 and 7808 and issued new ones, TCT Nos. 129551 and 129552, both in
the name of Pasay City.

While the deeds of donation were missing, the Republic filed a petition for the escheat of
the estate of Elizabeth Hankins before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. 1 During the
proceedings, a motion for intervention was filed by Romeo Solano, spouse of private
respondent, and one Gaudencio Regosa, but on 24 June 1987 the motion was denied by
the trial court for the reason that "they miserably failed to show valid claim or right to the
properties in question."2 Since it was established that there were no known heirs and
persons entitled to the properties of decedent Hankins, the lower court escheated the
estate of the decedent in favor of petitioner Republic of the Philippines.

By virtue of the decision of the trial court, the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City cancelled
TCT Nos. 7807 and 7808 and issued new ones, TCT Nos. 129551 and 129552, both in
the name of Pasay City.
The private respondent claimed that she accidentally found the deeds of donation she
had been looking for a long time. In view of this development, respondent Amada Solano
filed on 28 January 1997 a petition before the Court of Appeals for the annulment of the
lower court's decision.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the subject properties allegedly donated may form part of
Elizabeth's estate?
2. Whether or not Amada Solano, private respondent herein, is a proper claimant as
she is allegedly a donee?
3. Whether or not Solano's claim in the escheated property has prescribed?

HELD

The Court rules in favor of the Republic.

On 17 March 1997 the Office of the Solicitor General representing public respondents
RTC and the Register of Deeds (herein petitioner) filed an answer setting forth their
affirmative defenses, to wit: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action; and, (b)
the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations.

Finding no cogent reason to justify the dismissal of the petition for annulment, the Court
of Appeals issued on 12 November 1998 the first of its assailed Resolutions giving due
course to the petition for annulment of judgment and setting the date for trial on the
merits.

The Court noted that during the lower court proceedings, a motion for intervention was
earlier denied for failure of these claimants to establish their right over the subject
property. Moreover, the certificates of title covering the subject properties were still in the
name of decedent Elizabeth, which therefore indicates that no transfer of ownership
involving the disputed properties was ever made.

Where a person comes into an escheat proceeding as a claimant, the burden is on such
intervenor to establish his title to the property and his right to intervene. In this case, the
CA cannot presuppose that the subject properties were no longer part of decedent's
estate.

Rule 91, Section 4: "A claimant to an escheated property must file his claim
within 5 years from the date of such judgment, such person shall have
possession of and title to the same, or if sold, the municipality or city shall
be accountable to him for the proceeds after deducting the estate; but a
claim shall not be barred forever.

The 5-year period is not a device capriciously conjured by the state to defraud any
claimant, on the contrary, it is decidedly prescribed to encourage would-be claimants to
be punctual in asserting their claims, otherwise they may lose them forever in a final
judgment.

In the mind of this Court the subject properties were owned by the decedent during the
time that the escheat proceedings were being conducted and the lower court was not
divested of its jurisdiction to escheat them in favor of Pasay City notwithstanding an
allegation that they had been previously donated. We recall that a motion for intervention
was earlier denied by the escheat court for failure to show "valid claim or right to the
properties in question."9 Where a person comes into an escheat proceeding as a claimant,
the burden is on such intervenor to establish his title to the property and his right to
intervene. A fortiori, the certificates of title covering the subject properties were in the
name of the decedent indicating that no transfer of ownership involving the disputed
properties was ever made by the deceased during her lifetime. In the absence therefore
of any clear and convincing proof showing that the subject lands had been conveyed by
Hankins to private respondent Solano, the same still remained, at least before the
escheat, part of the estate of the decedent and the lower court was right not to assume
otherwise. The Court of Appeals therefore cannot perfunctorily presuppose that the
subject properties were no longer part of the decedent's estate at the time the lower court
handed down its decision on the strength of a belated allegation that the same had
previously been disposed of by the owner. It is settled that courts decide only after a close
scrutiny of every piece of evidence and analyze each case with deliberate precision and
unadulterated thoroughness, the judgment not being diluted by speculations, conjectures
and unsubstantiated assertions.