RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC. vs. HON. JANSEN R.

RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC-Br.6 of Manila, et al.

G.R. No. 192828, Reyes, J.
KINDS OF ACTIONs
Civil Action v. Special Proceeding
DOCTRINE: A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a
right, or a particular fact. It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action where a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
To initiate a special proceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be filed.
FACTS: The private respondents filed a Complaint against the Ramon Ching (Ramon), Po
Wing Properties and Stronghold Insurance Company, Global Business Bank, Inc. (formerly
PhilBank), Elena Tiu Del Pilar, Asia Atlantic Resources Ventures, Inc., Registers of Deeds of
Manila and Malabon, and all persons claiming rights or titles from Ramon and his successors-
in-interest.
In the Complaint, the respondents alleged the following as causes of action:
First Cause of Action
1. They are the heirs of Lim San, also known as Antonio Ching / Tiong Cheng / Ching Cheng
Suy (Antonio).
2. Respondents Joseph Cheng (Joseph) and Jaime Cheng (Jaime) are allegedly the children
of Antonio with his common-law wife, respondent Mercedes Igne (Mercedes).
3. Respondent Lucina Santos (Lucina) claimed that she was also a common-law wife of
Antonio.
4. The respondents averred that Ramon misrepresented himself as Antonio's and Lucina's
son when in truth and in fact, he was adopted and his birth certificate was merely simulated.
5. Antonio died of a stab wound. Police investigators identified Ramon as the prime suspect
and he now stands as the lone accused in a criminal case for murder filed against him.
Warrants of arrest issued against him have remained unserved as he is at large.
6. From the foregoing circumstances and upon the authority of Article 919of the New Civil
Code (NCC), the respondents concluded that Ramon can be legally disinherited, hence,
prohibited from receiving any share from the estate of Antonio.
Second Cause of Action.
1. Ramon misrepresented that there were only six real estate properties left by Antonio.
2. Ramon had illegally transferred to his name the titles to the said properties. Further, there
are two other parcels of land, cash and jewelries, plus properties in Hongkong, which were in
Ramon's possession.
Third Cause of Action.
1. Mercedes, being of low educational attainment, was sweet-talked by Ramon into
surrendering to him a Global Business Bank, Inc. (Global Bank) Certificate of Time Deposit of
P4,000,000.00 in the name of Antonio, and the certificates of title covering two condominium
units in Binondo which were purchased by Antonio using his own money but which were
registered in Ramon's name.
2. Ramon also fraudulently misrepresented to Joseph, Jaime and Mercedes that they will
promptly receive their complete shares, exclusive of the stocks in Po Wing Properties, Inc.
(Po Wing), from the estate of Antonio. Exerting undue influence, Ramon had convinced them
to execute an Agreement which was not complied with.
3. Further, Lucina was not informed of the execution of the said instruments and had not
received any amount from Ramon. Hence, the instruments are null and void.
Fourth Cause of Action
1. Antonio's 40,000 shares in Po Wing, which constitute 60% of the latter's total capital stock,
were illegally transferred by Ramon to his own name through a forged document of sale
executed after Antonio died.
 2. Po Wing owns a ten-storey building in Binondo. Ramon's claim that he bought the stocks
from Antonio before the latter died is baseless. Further, Lucina's shares in Po Wing had also
banished into thin air through Ramon's machinations.
Fifth Cause of Action.
1. Ramon executed an Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate adjudicating solely to
himself Antonio's entire estate to the prejudice of the respondents. By virtue of the said
instrument, new TCTs covering eight real properties owned by Antonio were issued in
Ramon's name.
2. Relative to the Po Wing shares, the Register of Deeds of Manila had required Ramon to
post a Surety Bond conditioned to answer for whatever claims which may eventually surface
in connection with the said stocks. Co-defendant Stronghold Insurance Company issued the
bond in Ramon's behalf.
Sixth Cause of Action.
1. Ramon sold Antonio's two parcels of land in Navotas to co-defendant Asia Atlantic
Business Ventures, Inc. Another parcel of land, which was part of Antonio's estate, was sold
by Ramon to co-defendant Elena Tiu Del Pilar at an unreasonably low price.
2. By reason of Ramon's lack of authority to dispose of any part of Antonio's estate, the
conveyances are null and void ab initio.
The Amended Complaint also added a seventh cause of action relative to the
existence of a Certificate of Premium Plus Acquisition (CPPA) in the amount of
₱4,000,000.00 originally issued by PhilBank to Antonio. The respondents prayed that they be
declared as the rightful owners of the CPPA and that it be immediately released to them.
Ramon’s wife, Belen Dy Tan Ching, now manages Antonio's estate and she has no
intent to convey to the respondents their shares in the estate of Antonio.
The respondents prayed that they be declared as the rightful owners of the CPPA and
that it be immediately released to them. Alternatively, the respondents prayed for the
issuance of a hold order relative to the CPPA to preserve it during the pendency of the case.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the respondents' Amended Complaint on the alleged
ground of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint. The
petitioners argued that since the Amended Complaint sought the release of the CPPA to the
respondents, the latter's declaration as heirs of Antonio, and the propriety of Ramon's
disinheritance, the suit partakes of the nature of a special proceeding and not an ordinary
action for declaration of nullity. Hence, jurisdiction pertains to a probate or intestate court and
not to the RTC
RTC: RTC issued an Order denying the petitioners' Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
action delves mainly on the question of ownership of the properties described in the
complaint. Also, the issue of disinheritance can be fully settled after a trial on the merits. And
at this stage, it has not been sufficiently established whether or not there is a will.
CA: CA affirmed this decision. It ruled that that nothing in the said complaint shows that
the action of the private respondents should be threshed out in a special proceeding, it
appearing that their allegations were substantially for the enforcement of their rights
against the alleged fraudulent acts committed by the petitioner Ramon Ching.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the RTC should have granted Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
filiation with Antonio of Ramon and the determination of the extent of Antonio's estate can
only be resolved in a special proceeding. (NO)
RULING: NO, RTC ACTED CORRECTLY BY DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS.
Although the respondents' Complaint and Amended Complaint sought, among others, the
disinheritance of Ramon and the release in favor of the respondents of the CPPA now under
Metrobank's custody, remains to be an ordinary civil action, and not a special proceeding
pertaining to a settlement court.
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a
right, or a particular fact. It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action where a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
To initiate a special proceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be filed. An action for
reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating
to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement of property made by
the decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the
application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein
the legal cause therefor shall be specified. While the respondents in their Complaint and
Amended Complaint sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument
supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate was ever mentioned.
The petitioners argue that the prayers in the Amended Complaint, seeking the release in
favor of the respondents of the CPPA under Metrobank's custody and the nullification of the
instruments subject of the complaint, necessarily require the determination of the
respondents' status as Antonio's heirs. It bears stressing that what the respondents prayed
for was that they be declared as the rightful owners of the CPPA which was in Mercedes'
possession prior to the execution of the Agreement and Waiver. It can thus be said that the
respondents' prayer relative to the CPPA was premised on Mercedes' prior possession
of and their alleged collective ownership of the same, and not on the declaration of
their status as Antonio's heirs.
Further, it also has to be emphasized that the respondents were parties to the execution
of an agreement prayed to be nullified. Hence, even without the necessity of being declared
as heirs of Antonio, the respondents have the standing to seek for the nullification of the
instruments in the light of their claims that there was no consideration for their execution, and
that Ramon exercised undue influence and committed fraud against them.
In the event that the RTC will find grounds to grant the reliefs prayed for by the
respondents, the only consequence will be the reversion of the properties subject of the
dispute to the estate of Antonio. RTC cannot be restrained from taking cognizance of
respondents' Complaint and Amended Complaint as the issues raised and the prayers
indicated therein are matters which need not be threshed out in a special proceeding.
In sum, the Court agrees with the CA that the nullification of the subject documents
could be achieved in an ordinary civil action, which in this specific case was instituted to
protect the respondents from the supposedly fraudulent acts of Ramon. The civil case was
not instituted to conclusively resolve the issues relating to the administration, liquidation and
distribution of Antonio's estate, hence, not the proper subject of a special proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of a deceased person under Rules 73-91 of the Rules of Court.