SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 224144. June 28, 2017.]

LOLITA BAS CAPABLANCA , petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF PEDRO BAS,

represented by JOSEFINA BAS ESPINOSA and REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU , respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

This resolves a Petition for Review 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated March 12,
2014 and Resolution 3 dated March 15, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, Nineteenth
Division, Cebu City. The Court of Appeals reversed the Decision 4 dated December 26,
2007 of Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City and dismissed the petitioner's
complaint. aDSIHc

The subject matter of this case is Lot 2535 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Land's
Estate located in "Biasong, Dumlog, Talisay, Cebu" 5 with an area of 6,120 square
meters. 6
Andres Bas (Andres) and Pedro Bas (Pedro) acquired Lot 2535, "and Patent No.
1724 was issued in their names on May 12, 1937." 7
On November 28, 1939, Pedro sold to Faustina Manreal (Faustina), married to
Juan Balorio, his portion of Lot 2535 "with a seeding capacity of four (4) chupas of
corn." 8 The sale was evidenced by a notarized Deed of Sale dated November 28, 1939.
9

After the death of Faustina and her husband, their heirs executed a notarized
Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 13, 1963.
Lot 2535 consisting of "1,000 square meters, more or less," was conveyed to one (1) of
their heirs, Alejandra Balorio (Alejandra). 1 0
Alejandra sold the land through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 13, 1967 to
Edith N. Deen, who in turn sold it to Atty. Eddy A. Deen (Atty. Deen) on March 21, 1968.
11

Upon Atty. Deen's death on December 18, 1978, an extra-judicial settlement of

estate, which did not include Lot 2535, was executed by his heirs. Later, or on March 30,
1988, they executed an Additional Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale,
which sold the land for P10,000.00 to Norberto B. Bas (Norberto), who took
possession of and built a house on it. 1 2
On December 15, 1995, Norberto died without a will and was succeeded by his
niece and only heir, Lolita Bas Capablanca (Lolita). 1 3
Subsequently, Lolita learned that a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-96676
dated June 6, 1996 was issued in the names of Andres and Pedro on the basis of a
reconstituted Deed of Conveyance No. 96-00004. 1 4
In October 1996, Jose na Bas Espinosa (Jose na) represented the Heirs of
Pedro Bas to le a complaint for Clari cation of Ownership of Lot 2535 against Lolita
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Biasong, Talisay, Cebu. 1 5 The con ict
between the parties was not resolved and resulted to the issuance of a Certi cation to
file Action. 1 6
On December 16, 1996, a notarized Partition Agreement of Real Property,
Quitclaim and Waiver of Rights was executed between the heirs of Andres and Lolita,
representing Norberto, whereby they partitioned Lot 2535 among themselves. 1 7
Lolita sought to register her portion in Lot 2535 but was denied by the Register
of Deeds of Cebu, citing the need for a court order. 1 8 Lolita then learned that TCT No.
T-96676 had been partially cancelled and TCT Nos. T-100181, T-100182, T-100183,
and T-100185 had been issued in the name of the Heirs of Pedro Bas, represented by
Josefina, on May 29, 1997. 1 9
On December 16, 1997, Lolita led a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu City for the cancellation of the titles with prayer for moral and exemplary
damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. 2 0
In their Answer, the Heirs of Pedro Bas claimed that "the sale between Pedro Bas
and Faustina Manreal [was] fake, spurious and invalid because [Pedro] who [was] an
illiterate never learned how to write his name so that the signature appearing thereon
could not have been made by Pedro Bas." 2 1 They further claimed that the cancellation
of TCT No. T-96676 was made pursuant to a nal judgment in Civil Case No. 840 2 2 for
Partition, Damages, and Attorney's Fees. 2 3
After trial, Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City rendered a Decision 2 4 on
December 26, 2007, in favor of Lolita. The trial court held that there was substantial
evidence to prove that Lolita had been in long possession of the lot under a claim of
ownership as the heir of Norberto and that it was not necessary for her to be rst
declared as his heir before ling the complaint. 2 5 It further ruled that to dismiss the
case on the ground that Lolita should rst be declared an heir would be too late as the
Heirs of Pedro Bas did not raise the issue in a motion to dismiss or as an a rmative
defense in their complaint. 2 6
On the substantive issues, the trial court upheld the validity of the 1939 Deed of
Sale executed by Pedro in favor of Faustina. It found Jose na's uncorroborated
testimony of Pedro's illiteracy as self-serving and unconvincing to contradict the
regularity of the notarized deed. Moreover, her testimony was controverted by the
notarized Assignment of Sale Certi cate 195, which bore the same signature of Pedro,
and by the Heirs of Pedro Bas' answers in Civil Case No. R-10602, another case which
contained allegations that Pedro sold his share in the lot to Faustina. 2 7 ETHIDa

The trial court further held that the object of the sale was determinate, i.e.,
Pedro's share in Lot 2535 was speci ed by the boundaries indicated in the Deed of
Sale. 2 8 It concluded that Norberto acquired the entire share of Pedro in Lot 2535,
which was found only after survey in 1996, 2 9 to actually consist of 3,060 square
meters and not 1,000 square meters as insisted by the Heirs of Pedro Bas. The trial
court gave credence to Lolita's testimony that before the survey, Pedro's portion was
estimated to be 1,000 square meters; hence, the area indicated in the successive
transfers of the lot from the heirs of Faustina down to Norberto was "1,000 square
meters, more or less." 3 0 Consequently, with Pedro's sale of his share in Lot 2535, his
heirs acquired no portion by inheritance and their titles were null and void and should be
cancelled. 3 1
Finally, the trial court a rmed that the Judgement of the Municipal Trial Court of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Talisay in Civil Case No. 840 for Partition, Damages and Attorney's fees was not binding
on Lolita, who was not a party to the case. 3 2
The fallo of the Decision read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, a judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, declaring as null and void and
ordering the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cebu to cancel the following
transfer certificates of title:
1) Transfer Certi cate of Title No. T-100181, of the Register of Deeds
of the Province of Cebu, in the name of Heirs of Pedro Bas,
represented by Jose na Bas, covering Lot 2535-J, Psd-07-037377,
being a portion of Lot 2535, Flr-133, situated in the Barrio of
Dumlog, Mun. of Talisay, Prov. of Cebu, Island of Cebu, containing
an area of 304 square meters;
2) Transfer Certi cate of Title No. T-100182, of the Register of Deeds
of the Province of Cebu, in the name of Heirs of Pedro Bas,
represented by Jose na Bas, covering Lot 2535-B, Psd-07-037377,
being a portion of Lot 2535, Flr-133, situated in the Barrio of
Dumlog, Mun. of Talisay, Prov. of Cebu, Island of Cebu, containing
an area of 1,554 square meters;
3) Transfer Certi cate of Title No. T-100183, of the Register of Deeds
of the Province of Cebu, in the name of Heirs of Pedro Bas,
represented by Jose na Bas, covering Lot 2535-A, Psd-07-037377,
being a portion of Lot 2535, Flr-133, situated in the Barrio of
Dumlog, Mun. of Talisay, Prov. of Cebu, Island of Cebu, containing
an area of 965 square meters; and
4) Transfer Certi cate of Title No. T-100185, of the Register of Deeds
of the Province of Cebu, in the name of Heirs of Pedro Bas,
represented by Jose na Bas, covering Lot 2535-A Psd-07-037377,
being a portion of Lot 2535, Flr-133, situated in the Barrio of
Dumlog, Mun. of Talisay, Prov. of Cebu, Island of Cebu, containing
an area of 187 square meters.
Costs against the defendants. 3 3
The Regional Trial Court subsequently denied the Heirs of Pedro Bas' motion for
reconsideration. 3 4
Hence, the Heirs of Pedro Bas appealed to the Court of Appeals, making the
following lone assignment of error:
The trial court seriously erred in not dismissing the case for plaintiff's
lack of cause of action pursuant to (the) doctrinal jurisprudential case of Guido
and Isabel Yaptinchay vs. Del Rosario (304 SCRA 18) considering that plaintiff
in her complaint alleged, she is the sole heir of Norberto Bas. 3 5
The Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court Decision and dismissed
the complaint. 3 6 According to the Court of Appeals, Lolita must first be declared as the
sole heir to the estate of Norberto in a proper special proceeding. Thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated December 26,
2007, of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 8, Cebu City in
Civil Case No. CEB-21348 for Ownership, Nullity of Deeds, Cancellation of TCT
Nos. T-100181, T-100182, T-100183[,] and T-100185, covering portions of Lot
No. 2535, damages, etc., ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certi cates of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Title Nos. T-100181, T-100182, T-100183[,] and T-100185 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.
The complaint of plaintiff-appellee is hereby DISMISSED, without
prejudice to any subsequent proceeding to determine the lawful heirs of the late
Norberto Bas and the rights concomitant therewith. 3 7
Lolita sought reconsideration but was denied in the Court of Appeals Resolution
dated March 15, 2016.
Hence, Lolita led this Petition principally contending that the Court of Appeals
committed a reversible error in reversing the Regional Trial Court Decision and
dismissing the complaint.
Petitioner argues that the 1999 case of the Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario 3 8
cited in the Court of Appeals Decision does not apply to this case because the factual
circumstances are different. 3 9 In that case, the claims of the opposing parties were
anchored on their alleged status as heirs of the original owner. 4 0 "Hence there may
have been the need for a previous judicial declaration of heirship in a special
proceeding." 4 1 Here, petitioner does not claim to be an heir of Pedro, the original
owner. Rather, her interest over the property is derived from a series of transactions
starting from the sale executed by Pedro. 4 2 cSEDTC

Petitioner further contends that respondents neither raised the ground "lack of
cause of action" as an a rmative defense nor led a motion to dismiss before the
court a quo. Instead, they allowed the trial to proceed with their full participation all
throughout. Petitioner asserts that respondents' action or inaction should be
constituted a waiver. 4 3 Otherwise, respondents' "failure to properly act on its perceived
defect" in the complaint hampers the speedy disposition of the action "and would only
promote multiplicity of suits." 4 4
In their two (2)-page Comment, 4 5 respondents contend that the ndings of the
Court of Appeals were duly supported by evidence and jurisprudence.
This Court grants the petition.
Contrary to the erroneous conclusion of the Court of Appeals, this Court nds no
need for a separate proceeding for a declaration of heirship in order to resolve
petitioner's action for cancellation of titles of the property.
The dispute in this case is not about the heirship of petitioner to Norberto but the
validity of the sale of the property in 1939 from Pedro to Faustina, from which followed
a series of transfer transactions that culminated in the sale of the property to Norberto.
For with Pedro's sale of the property in 1939, it follows that there would be no more
ownership or right to property that would have been transmitted to his heirs.
Petitioner's claim is anchored on a sale of the property to her predecessor-in-
interest and not on any liation with the original owner. What petitioner is pursuing is
Norberto's right of ownership over the property which was passed to her upon the
latter's death. 4 6
This Court has stated that no judicial declaration of heirship is necessary in order
that an heir may assert his or her right to the property of the deceased. 4 7 In Marabilles
v. Quito: 4 8
The right to assert a cause of action as an heir, although he has not been
judicially declared to be so, if duly proven, is well settled in this jurisdiction. This
is upon the theory that the property of a deceased person, both real and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 personal, becomes the property of the heir by the mere fact of death of his
predecessor in interest, and as such he can deal with it in precisely the same
way in which the deceased could have dealt, subject only to the limitations
which by law or by contract may be imposed upon the deceased himself. Thus,
it has been held that "[t]here is no legal precept or established rule which
imposes the necessity of a previous legal declaration regarding their status as
heirs to an intestate on those who, being of age and with legal capacity,
consider themselves the legal heirs of a person, in order that they may maintain
an action arising out of a right which belonged to their ancestor" . . . A recent
case wherein this principle was maintained is Cabuyao vs. [C]aagbay . 4 9
(Emphasis supplied)
The Court of Appeals' reliance on the ruling in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario
5 0 was misplaced. In that case, the motion to dismiss was led immediately after the
second Amended Complaint was led. 5 1 The trial court granted the motion to dismiss,
holding that the Heirs of Yaptinchay "have not shown any proof or even a semblance of
it — except the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the above-named Yaptinchays
— that they have been declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple." 5 2
Here, respondents never raised their objection to petitioner's capacity to sue
either as an a rmative defense or in a motion to dismiss. 5 3 Rule 9, Section 1 of the
Rules of Court states, "[d]efenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived." Thus, it was erroneous for the Court of
Appeals to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was no prior judicial
declaration of petitioner's heirship to Norberto. 5 4
Moreover, the pronouncement in the Heirs of Yaptinchay that a declaration of
heirship must be made only in a special proceeding and not in an ordinary civil action
for reconveyance of property was based on Litam, etc., et al. v. Rivera 5 5 and Solivio v.
Court of Appeals, 5 6 which involved different factual milieus.
The facts of the case in Litam, etc., et al. v. Rivera 5 7 show that during the
pendency of the special proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate of the
deceased Rafael Litam, the plaintiffs-appellants led a civil action. They claimed that as
the children of the deceased by a previous marriage to a Chinese woman, they were
entitled to inherit his one-half (1/2) share of the conjugal properties acquired during his
marriage to Marcosa Rivera (Marcosa). 5 8 The trial court in the civil case declared,
among others, that the plaintiffs-appellants were not children of the deceased and that
Marcosa was his only heir. 5 9 On appeal, this Court ruled that such declaration — that
Marcosa was the only heir of the decedent — was improper because the determination
of the issue was within the exclusive competence of the court in the special
proceedings. 6 0
I n Solivio v. Court of Appeals , 6 1 the deceased Esteban Javellana, Jr. was
survived by Celedonia Solivio (Celedonia), his maternal aunt, and Concordia Javellana-
Villanueva (Concordia), his paternal aunt. 6 2 Celedonia led the intestate proceedings
and had herself declared as sole heir and administratrix of the estate of the decedent to
facilitate the implementation of the latter's wish to place his estate in a foundation
named after his mother. 6 3 While the probate proceeding was pending, Concordia led
a separate civil action where she sought to be declared as co-heir and for partition of
the estate. 6 4 This Court held that the "separate action was improperly led for it is the
probate court that has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution of the
estate." 6 5 This Court further held that "in the interest of orderly procedure and to avoid
confusing and con icting dispositions of a decedent's estate, a court should not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 interfere with probate proceedings pending in a co-equal court." 6 6 SDAaTC

I n Litam and Solivio, the adverse parties were putative heirs to a decedent's
estate or parties to the special proceedings for an estate's settlement. Hence, this
Court ruled that questions on the status and right of the contending parties must be
properly ventilated in the appropriate special proceeding, not in an ordinary civil action.
Here, as stated, the main issue is the annulment of title to property, which
ultimately hinges on the validity of the sale from Pedro to Faustina. Petitioner does not
claim any liation with Pedro or seek to establish her right as his heir as against the
respondents. Rather, petitioner seeks to enforce her right over the property which has
been allegedly violated by the fraudulent acts of respondents.
Furthermore, as found by the Regional Trial Court:
The plaintiff [Lolita] has su cient interest to protect in the subject
portion of Lot 2535. She had been there for around thirty (30) years, and had
been in possession thereof under a claim of ownership as an alleged heir of
Norberto Bas after the latter's death on December 15, 1993, that is: long before
the issuance of TCT Nos. T-100181, T-100182, T-100183[,] and T-100185 in
1997, and even TCT No. T-96676 in 1996. Moreover, it is annotated on TCT No.
T-96676 (Exhibit "G") that she, together with the heirs of Osmundo Bas, executed
a declaration of heirs with partition, quitclaim, etc., dated December 16, 1996,
registered on March 3, 1997 . . . wherein they adjudicated unto themselves and
partitioned Lot No. 2535 . . . She also executed on June 14, 1997 an A davit of
Adjudication by Sole Heir, declaring herself as the sole heir of Norberto Bas and
adjudicated unto herself the subject portion pursuant to Section 1, Rule 74 of
the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
The existence of the questioned certi cates of title, and other related
documents, constitute clouds on said interest. There seems, therefore, to be no
necessity that the plaintiff should have been declared rst as an heir of
Norberto Bas as a prerequisite to this action. Her possession of the subject lot
under a claim of ownership is a su cient interest to entitle her to bring this suit.
6 7 (Citation omitted)

This case has gone a long way since the complaint was led in 1997. A full-blown
trial had taken place and judgment was rendered by the Regional Trial Court where it
thoroughly discussed, evaluated, and weighed all the pieces of documentary evidence
and testimonies of the witnesses of both parties. At this point, to dismiss the case and
require petitioner to institute a special proceeding to determine her status as heir of the
late Norberto would hamper, instead of serve, justice.
In Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, 6 8 where the contending parties insisted to be the
legal heirs of the decedent, this Court dispensed with the need to institute a separate
special proceeding to determine their heirship since the parties had voluntarily
submitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence. It held:
It appearing, however, that in the present case the only property of the
intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still subject it,
under the circumstances of the case, to a special proceeding which could be
long, hence, not expeditious, just to establish the status of petitioners as heirs is
not only impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and expenses
of an administration proceeding. And it is super uous in light of the fact that
the parties to the civil case — subject of the present case, could and had already
in fact presented evidence before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over
the case upon the issues it defined during pre-trial.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 In ne, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no
compelling reason to still subject Portugal's estate to administration
proceedings since a determination of petitioners' status as heirs could be
achieved in the civil case led by petitioners, the trial court should proceed to
evaluate the evidence presented by the parties during the trial and render a
decision thereon[.] 6 9 (Citation omitted)
In this case, there is no necessity for a separate special proceeding and to
require it would be super uous considering that petitioner had already presented
evidence to establish her liation and heirship to Norberto, which respondents never
disputed. acEHCD

WHEREFORE , the Petition is GRANTED . The Court of Appeals Decision dated

March 12, 2014 and Resolution dated March 15, 2016 are VACATED and SET ASIDE .
The Decision dated December 26, 2007 of Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City is
REINSTATED .
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, ** Mendoza and Martires, JJ., concur.
Carpio, * J., is on official leave.
Footnotes
* On official leave.
** Designated Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2445 dated June 16, 2017.

1. Rollo, pp. 12-43. Filed under Rule 45.

2. Id. at 49-64. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 03052, was penned by Associate
Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon
Paul L. Hernando and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan of the Nineteenth Division, Court
of Appeals, Cebu City.
3 . Id. at 45-47. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and
concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi
of the Special Former Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
4. Id. at 65-96. The Decision, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-21348, was penned by Presiding
Judge Macaundas M. Hadjirasul.
5. Id. at 84. "Biasong and Dumlog eventually became two (2) separate Barangays . . . and
Talisay, a City."
6. Id. at 50 and 84.
7. Id. at 50.
8. Id. at 73 and 86.
9. Id.

10. Id. at 86.

11. Id. at 51.
12. Id.
13. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 14. Id.
15. Id. at 52.

16. Id.
17. Id. at 74.
18. Id. at 52.
19. Id. at 54-55.
20. Id. at 55.

21. Id.
22. Id. at 85. The case was entitled Heirs of Pedro Bas, represented by Jose na Bas-Espinosa v.
Sps. Araceli Patatag and Nida Jervacio. A judgment on compromise was rendered by the
court on May 13, 1997.

23. Id. at 55.

24. Id. at 65-96.
25. Id. at 92.
26. Id. at 91.
27. Id. at 93.

28. Id. at 94.

29. Id. at 89.
30. Id. at 95.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 93.

33. Id. at 95-A-96.

34. Id. at 59-60.
35. Id. at 60.
36. Id. at 63-64.

37. Id. at 63-64.

38. 363 Phil. 393 (1999) [Per J. Purisima, Third Division].
39. Rollo, p. 24.
40. Id. at 24-25.
41. Id. at 25.

42. Id. at 26.

43. Id. at 31.
44. Id. at 32.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 45. Id. at 111-112.
46. CIVIL CODE, art. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the
death of the decedent.
47. Bordalba v. Court of Appeals , 425 Phil. 407, 416 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First
Division]; Heirs of Conti v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 118464, [December 21, 1998], 360
Phil. 536, 545 (1998) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
48. 100 Phil. 64 (1956) [Per J. Angelo Bautista, En Banc].
49. Id. at 65-66, citing Suiliong & Co. vs. Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., et al., 12 Phil. 13, 19 (1908)
[Per J. Carson, En Banc], Hernandez vs. Padua, 14 Phil. 194 (1909) [Per C.J. Arellano,
First Division], Cabuyao v. Caagbay , 95 Phil. 614 (1954) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc].

50. 363 Phil. 393 (1999) [Per J. Purisima, Third Division].

51. Id. at 396.
52. Id. at 397.
53. Rollo, p. 91.

54. I n Aldemita v. Heirs of Silva , 537 Phil. 97 (2006) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division],
petitioner insisted that without respondents having been rst declared as heirs of the
owner in a special proceeding, the case for quieting of title must be dismissed for lack of
cause of action citing the Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario . The Court held that
petitioner could no longer raise the issue of respondent's capacity to sue after the case
had been submitted for decision in the trial court or on appeal before the Court of
Appeals.
55. 100 Phil. 364 (1956) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc].
56. 261 Phil. 231 (1990) [Per J. Medialdea, First Division].
57. 100 Phil. 364 (1956) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc].

58. Id. at 366.

59. Id. at 370.
60. Id. at 378.
61. 261 Phil. 231 (1990) [Per J. Medialdea, First Division].

62. Id. at 236.

63. Id. at 237.
64. Id. at 238.
65. Id. at 240.
66. Id. at 241.

67. Rollo, p. 92.

68. 504 Phil. 456 (2005) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].
69. Id. at 470-471.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com