G.R. No.

192828               November 28, 2011 First Cause of Action. They are the heirs of Lim San, also known as Antonio
Ching / Tiong Cheng / Ching Cheng Suy (Antonio). Respondents Joseph Cheng
RAMON S. CHING AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, (Joseph) and Jaime Cheng (Jaime) are allegedly the children of Antonio with his
vs. common-law wife, respondent Mercedes Igne (Mercedes). Respondent Lucina
HON. JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Santos (Lucina) claimed that she was also a common-law wife of Antonio. The
Court of Manila, Branch 6, JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND respondents averred that Ramon misrepresented himself as Antonio's and
LUCINA SANTOS, substituted by her son, EDUARDO S. BALAJADIA, Respondents. Lucina's son when in truth and in fact, he was adopted and his birth certificate
was merely simulated. On July 18, 1996, Antonio died of a stab wound. Police
investigators identified Ramon as the prime suspect and he now stands as the
RESOLUTION
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. From the
REYES, J.: foregoing circumstances and upon the authority of Article 9197 of the New Civil
Code (NCC), the respondents concluded that Ramon can be legally
The Case disinherited, hence, prohibited from receiving any share from the estate of
Antonio.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the December 14, 2009 Decision2 and July 8, 2010 Resolution3 of the Court of Second Cause of Action. On August 26, 1996, prior to the conclusion of the
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 99856. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision police investigations tagging Ramon as the prime suspect in the murder of
reads: Antonio, the former made an inventory of the latter's estate. Ramon
misrepresented that there were only six real estate properties left by Antonio.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by The respondents alleged that Ramon had illegally transferred to his name the
us DENYING the petition filed in this case and AFFIRMING the assailed Orders dated titles to the said properties. Further, there are two other parcels of land, cash
March 15, 2007 and May 16, 2007 issued by the respondent Judge of the Regional Trial and jewelries, plus properties in Hongkong, which were in Ramon's possession.
Court (RTC), Branch 6, in Manila in Civil Case No. 02-105251.4
Third Cause of Action. Mercedes, being of low educational attainment, was
The assailed Resolution denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. sweet-talked by Ramon into surrendering to him a Global Business Bank, Inc.
(Global Bank) Certificate of Time Deposit of ₱4,000,000.00 in the name of
The Factual Antecedents 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. Ramon also fraudulently misrepresented to
Sometime between November 25, 2002 and December 3, 2002,5 the respondents filed a
Joseph, Jaime and Mercedes that they will promptly receive their complete
Complaint6 against the petitioners and Stronghold Insurance Company, Global Business
shares, exclusive of the stocks in Po Wing Properties, Inc. (Po Wing), from the
Bank, Inc. (formerly PhilBank), Elena Tiu Del Pilar, Asia Atlantic Resources Ventures, Inc.,
estate of Antonio. Exerting undue influence, Ramon had convinced them to
Registers of Deeds of Manila and Malabon, and all persons claiming rights or titles from
execute an Agreement8 and a Waiver9 on August 20, 1996. The terms and
Ramon Ching (Ramon) and his successors-in-interest.
conditions stipulated in the Agreement and Waiver, specifically, on the
payment by Ramon to Joseph, Jaime and Mercedes of the amount of
The Complaint, captioned as one for "Disinheritance, Declaration of Nullity of ₱22,000,000.00, were not complied with. Further, Lucina was not informed of
Agreement and Waiver, Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale, the execution of the said instruments and had not received any amount from
Transfer Certificates of Title with Prayer for [the] Issuance of [a] Temporary Restraining Ramon. Hence, the instruments are null and void.
Order and [a] Writ of Preliminary Injunction," was docketed as Civil Case No. 02-105251
and raffled to Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC).
Fourth Cause of Action. 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
In the Complaint, the respondents alleged the following as causes of action: own name through a forged document of sale executed after Antonio died. 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 c.) Declaring the nullity of the AGREEMENT and WAIVER executed by plaintiffs
in Po Wing had also banished into thin air through Ramon's machinations. x x x in favor of x x x RAMON CHING for being patently immoral, invalid, illegal,
simulated and (sic) sham;
Fifth Cause of Action. On October 29, 1996, Ramon executed an Affidavit of
Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate10 adjudicating solely to himself Antonio's d.) Declaring the nullity of the transfer of the shares of stocks at (sic) PO WING
entire estate to the prejudice of the respondents. By virtue of the said from the names of ANTONIO CHING and LUCINA SANTOS to the defendant
instrument, new Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) covering eight real ANTONIO CHING's name for having been illegally procured through the
properties owned by Antonio were issued in Ramon's name. Relative to the Po falsification of their signatures in the document purporting the transfer
Wing shares, the Register of Deeds of Manila had required Ramon to post a thereof;
Surety Bond conditioned to answer for whatever claims which may eventually
surface in connection with the said stocks. Co-defendant Stronghold Insurance e.) Declaring the nullity and to have no force and effect the AFFIDAVIT OF
Company issued the bond in Ramon's behalf. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE executed by x x x RAMON CHING for being contrary to
law and existing jurisprudence;
Sixth Cause of Action. Ramon sold Antonio's two parcels of land in Navotas to
co-defendant Asia Atlantic Business Ventures, Inc. Another parcel of land, f.) Declaring the nullity of the DEED OF SALES (sic) executed by x x x RAMON
which was part of Antonio's estate, was sold by Ramon to co-defendant Elena CHING (i) over two (2) parcels of land x x x to defendant ASIA ATLANTIC
Tiu Del Pilar at an unreasonably low price. By reason of Ramon's lack of BUSINESS VENTURES, Inc.; and (ii) one (1) parcel of land x x x sold to x x x
authority to dispose of any part of Antonio's estate, the conveyances are null ELENA TIU DEL PILAR for having illegally procured the ownership and titles of
and void  ab initio. the above properties;

Since Ramon is at large, his wife, Belen Dy Tan Ching, now manages Antonio's estate. x x x.11
She has no intent to convey to the respondents their shares in the estate of Antonio.
The petitioners filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss12 alleging forum shopping, litis
The respondents thus prayed for the following in their Complaint: pendentia, res judicata and the respondents as not being the real parties in interest.

1. x x x a temporary restraining order be issued restraining the defendant RAMON On July 30, 2004, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order13 denying the petitioners' Motion to
CHING and/or his attorney-in-fact Belen Dy Tan Ching from disposing, selling or Dismiss.
alienating any property that belongs to the estate of the deceased ANTONIO CHING;
The respondents filed an Amended Complaint14 dated April 7, 2005 impleading
xxx Metrobank as the successor-in-interest of co-defendant Global Bank. The Amended
Complaint also added a seventh cause of action relative to the existence of a Certificate
4. x x x 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
a.) Declaring that the defendant RAMON CHING who murdered his father owners of the CPPA and that it be immediately released to them. Alternatively, the
ANTONIO CHING disqualified as heir and from inheriting to (sic) the estate of respondents prayed for the issuance of a hold order relative to the CPPA to preserve it
his father; during the pendency of the case.

b.) Declaring the nullity of the defendant RAMON CHING transfer (sic) of the six On April 22, 2005, the petitioners filed their Consolidated Answer with Counterclaim.15
[6] parcels of land from the name of his father ANTONIO CHING to his name
covered by TCT No. x x x; On October 28, 2005, the RTC issued an Order16 admitting the respondents' Amended
Complaint. The RTC stressed that Metrobank had already filed Manifestations admitting
that as successor-in-interest of Global Bank, it now possesses custody of Antonio's
deposits. Metrobank expressed willingness to abide by any court order as regards the
disposition of Antonio's deposits. The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration filed to The above Order, and a subsequent Order dated May 16, 2007 denying the petitioners'
assail the aforecited Order was denied by the RTC on May 3, 2006. Motion for Reconsideration, became the subjects of a petition for certiorari filed with
the CA. The petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 99856, raised the issue of whether or
On May 29, 2006, the petitioners filed their Consolidated Answer with Counterclaim to not the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it denied the petitioners' Motion to
the respondents' Amended Complaint. Dismiss despite the fact that the Amended Complaint sought to establish the status or
rights of the respondents which subjects are within the ambit of a special proceeding.
On August 11, 2006, the RTC issued a pre-trial order.17
On December 14, 2009, the CA rendered the now assailed Decision21 denying the
petition for certiorari on grounds:
On January 18, 2007, the petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss18 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 Our in-depth assessment of the condensed allegations supporting the causes of action
Amended  Complaint sought the release of the CPPA to the respondents, the latter's of the amended complaint induced us to infer that nothing in the said complaint shows
declaration as heirs of Antonio, and the propriety of Ramon's disinheritance, the suit that the action of the private respondents should be threshed out in a special
partakes of the nature of a special proceeding and not an ordinary action for declaration proceeding, it appearing that their allegations were substantially for the enforcement
of nullity. Hence, jurisdiction pertains to a probate or intestate court and not to the RTC of their rights against the alleged fraudulent acts committed by the petitioner Ramon
acting as an ordinary court. Ching. The private respondents also instituted the said amended complaint in order to
protect them from the consequence of the fraudulent acts of Ramon Ching by seeking
to disqualify Ramon Ching from inheriting from Antonio Ching as well as to enjoin him
On March 15, 2007, the RTC issued an Order19 denying the petitioners' Motion to
from disposing or alienating the subject properties, including the ₱4 Million deposit
Dismiss on grounds:
with Metrobank. The intestate or probate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such
issues, which must be submitted to the court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as
In the case at bar, an examination of the Complaint would disclose that the action a regional trial court. Furthermore, we agree with the trial court that the probate court
delves mainly on the question of ownership of the properties described in the Complaint could not take cognizance of the prayer to disinherit Ramon Ching, given the undisputed
which can be properly settled in an ordinary civil action. And as pointed out by the fact that there was no will to be contested in a probate court.
defendants, the action seeks to declare the nullity of the Agreement, Waiver, Affidavit of
Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificates of Title, which
The petition at bench apparently cavils the subject amended complaint and complicates
were all allegedly executed by defendant Ramon Ching to defraud the plaintiffs. The
the issue of jurisdiction by reiterating the grounds or defenses set up in the petitioners'
relief of establishing the status of the plaintiffs which could have translated this action
earlier pleadings. Notwithstanding, the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter
into a special proceeding was nowhere stated in the Amended Complaint. With regard
is determined by the allegations of the complaint without regard to whether or not the
[to] the prayer to declare the plaintiffs as the rightful owner[s] of the CPPA and that
private respondents (plaintiffs) are entitled to recover upon all or some of the causes of
the same be immediately released to them, in itself poses an issue of ownership which
action asserted therein. In this regard, the jurisdiction of the court does not depend
must be proved by plaintiffs by substantial evidence. And as emphasized by the
upon the defenses pleaded in the answer or in the motion to dismiss, lest the question
plaintiffs, the Amended Complaint was intended to implead Metrobank as a co-
of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the petitioners (defendants).22 Hence,
defendant.
we focus our resolution on the issue of jurisdiction on the allegations in the amended
complaint and not on the defenses pleaded in the motion to dismiss or in the
As regards the issue of disinheritance, the court notes that during the Pre-trial of this subsequent pleadings of the petitioners.
case, one of the issues raised by the defendants Ramon Ching and Po Wing Properties is:
Whether or not there can be disinheritance in intestate succession? Whether or not
In fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there being no compelling reason
defendant Ramon Ching can be legally disinherited from the estate of his father? To the
to still subject the action of the petitioners in a special proceeding since the
mind of the Court, the issue of disinheritance, which is one of the causes of action in the
nullification of the subject documents could be achieved in the civil case, the lower
Complaint, can be fully settled after a trial on the merits. And at this stage, it has not
court should proceed to evaluate the evidence of the parties and render a decision
been sufficiently established whether or not there is a will.20 (Emphasis supplied.)
thereon upon the issues that it defined during the pre-trial in Civil Case No. 02-
105251.23 (emphasis supplied)
The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA through a Further, no reversible errors were committed by the RTC and the CA when they both
Resolution24 issued on July 8, 2010. ruled that the denial of the petitioners' second motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 02-
105251 was proper.
The Issue
Even without delving into the procedural allegations of the respondents that the
25
The instant Petition for Review on Certiorari  is anchored on the issue of: petitioners engaged in forum shopping and are already estopped from questioning the
RTC's jurisdiction after having validly submitted to it when the latter participated in the
proceedings, the denial of the instant Petition is still in order. Although the respondents'
Whether or not the RTC should have granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the
Complaint and Amended Complaint sought, among others, the disinheritance of Ramon
PETITIONERS on the alleged ground of the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the subject
and the release in favor of the respondents of the CPPA now under Metrobank's
matter of the Amended Complaint, to wit, (a) filiations with Antonio of Ramon, Jaime
custody, Civil Case No. 02-105251 remains to be an ordinary civil action, and not a
and Joseph; (b) rights of common-law wives, Lucina and Mercedes, to be considered as
special proceeding pertaining to a settlement court.
heirs of Antonio; (c) determination of the extent of Antonio's estate; and (d) other
matters which can only be resolved in a special proceeding and not in an ordinary civil
action. 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
The petitioners argue that only a probate court has the authority to determine (a) who
proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application of specific rules as provided
are the heirs of a decedent; (b) the validity of a waiver of hereditary rights; (c) the status
for in the Rules of Court.32 A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
of each heir; and (d) whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or the exclusive
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.33 It is distinguished from an ordinary civil
property of the deceased spouse.26 Further, the extent of Antonio's estate, the status of
action where a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
the contending parties and the respondents' alleged entitlement as heirs to receive the
prevention or redress of a wrong.34 To initiate a special proceeding, a petition and not a
proceeds of Antonio's CPPA now in Metrobank's custody are matters which are more
complaint should be filed.
appropriately the subjects of a special proceeding and not of an ordinary civil action.

Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein
The respondents opposed27 the instant petition claiming that the petitioners are
the legal cause therefor shall be specified. This Court agrees with the RTC and the CA
engaged in forum shopping. Specifically, G.R. Nos. 17550728 and 183840,29 both involving
that while the respondents in their Complaint and Amended Complaint sought the
the contending parties in the instant petition were filed by the petitioners and are
disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument supposedly effecting the disposition
currently pending before this Court. Further, in Mendoza v. Hon. Teh,30 the SC declared
of Antonio's estate was ever mentioned.  Hence, despite the prayer for Ramon's
that whether a particular matter should be resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its
disinheritance, Civil Case No. 02-105251 does not partake of the nature of a special
general jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction, is not a jurisdictional issue but a
proceeding and does not call for the probate court's exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
mere question of procedure. Besides, the petitioners, having validly submitted
themselves to the jurisdiction of the RTC and having actively participated in the trial of
the case, are already estopped from challenging the RTC's jurisdiction over the The petitioners also argue that the prayers in the Amended Complaint, seeking the
respondents' Complaint and Amended Complaint.31 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.
The Court's Ruling

It bears stressing that what the respondents prayed for was that they be declared as  the
We resolve to deny the instant petition.
rightful owners of the CPPA which was in Mercedes' possession prior to the execution of
the Agreement and Waiver. The respondents also prayed for the alternative relief of
The petitioners failed to comply with a lawful order of this Court directing them to file securing the issuance by the RTC of a hold order relative to the CPPA to preserve
their reply to the respondents' Comment/Opposition to the instant Petition. While the Antonio's deposits with Metrobank during the pendency of the case. It can thus be said
prescribed period to comply expired on March 15, 2011, the petitioners filed their that the respondents' prayer relative to the CPPA was premised on Mercedes' prior
Manifestation that they will no longer file a reply only on October 10, 2011 or after the possession of and their alleged collective ownership of the same, and not on the
lapse of almost seven months. declaration of their status as Antonio's heirs. Further, it also has to be emphasized that
the respondents were parties to the execution of the Agreement35 and Waiver36 prayed counsel that they will no longer file a reply to the respondents' Comment/Opposition to
to be nullified. Hence, even without the necessity of being declared as heirs of Antonio, the instant petition are NOTED.
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 SO ORDERED.
exercised undue influence and committed fraud against them. Consequently, the
respondents then claimed that the Affidavit of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Antonio’s
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
estate executed by Ramon, and the TCTs issued upon the authority of the said affidavit,
Associate Justice
are null and void as well. Ramon's averment that a resolution of the issues raised shall
first require a declaration of the respondents' status as heirs is a mere defense which is
not determinative of which court shall properly exercise jurisdiction. WE CONCUR:

In Marjorie Cadimas v. Marites Carrion and Gemma Hugo,37 the Court declared: ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction of the court over the subject
matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether or not ARTURO D. BRION JOSE P. PEREZ
the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As a Associate Justice Associate Justice
necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon
the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the
question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing Associate Justice
from the allegations in the complaint. The averments in the complaint and the character
of the relief sought are the matters to be consulted.1âwphi1 ATTESTATION

In sum, this Court agrees with the CA that the nullification of the documents subject of I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation
Civil Case No. 02-105251 could be achieved in an ordinary civil action, which in this before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
specific case was instituted to protect the respondents from the supposedly fraudulent
acts of Ramon. In the event that the RTC will find grounds to grant the reliefs prayed for ANTONIO T. CARPIO
by the respondents, the only consequence will be the reversion of the properties subject Associate Justice
of the dispute to the estate of Antonio. Civil Case No. 02-105251 was not instituted to Chairperson, Second Division
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 CERTIFICATION
settlement of the estate of a deceased person under Rules 73-91 of the Rules of Court.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
The respondents' resort to an ordinary civil action before the RTC may not be Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
strategically sound, because a settlement proceeding should thereafter still follow, if consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
their intent is to recover from Ramon the properties alleged to have been illegally Division.
transferred in his name. Be that as it may, the RTC, in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction, cannot be restrained from taking cognizance of respondents' Complaint and
RENATO C. CORONA
Amended Complaint as the issues raised and the prayers indicated therein are matters
Chief Justice
which need not be threshed out in a special proceeding.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The petitioners' (a) Opposition to the
respondents' Motion to Admit Substitution of Party;38 and (b) Manifestation39 through