Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 72
Rule 72. Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules
(Sections 1 and 2)
Civil Action and Special Proceedings distinguished
Civil action
One by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
It is a formal demand of one's legal rights in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law.
It is the method of applying legal remedies according to definite established rules.
An ordinary suit in the courts of justice.
Formal demand.
An action furthermore, must necessarily involve at least two parties:
a plaintiff who initiates a case with the filing of the complaint and
a defendant who responds through an answer.
The very definition of a civil action contemplates at least two parties in the phrase "a party sues another," who is a definite adverse party."
The issues or disputes alleged in the pleadings are generally heard by a court of general jurisdiction, which must rule on the respective rights and obligations of the parties.
An action is adversarial in nature because it is always based on a cause of action, except for certain special civil actions, which are not based on a cause of action.
Special proceeding
Pertains to a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
It is not accurate to characterize a special proceeding as a mere form of or subspecies of an action.
Special proceedings refer to every other remedy furnished by law.
Petition.
Conversely, special proceedings usually involve just one party, who usually initiates the proceedings with:
a petition,
an application, or
a special form of a pleading.
Oppositers may join the proceedings by responding through their oppositions.
The issues that may be ruled upon by the court are dictated by the law because it exercises limited jurisdiction in a special proceeding.
As a general rule, it is non-adversarial in nature when initiated, but it may become adversarial in the course of the proceedings when there are op positors.
Moreover, special proceedings are not usually based on a cause of action, with certain exceptions such as in habeas corpus.
In a special proceeding, the remedy is generally granted upon application or motion, and formal pleadings are not usually required, unless the statute expressly provides so.
Explaining the crucial distinction between an ordinary action and a special proceeding. Chief Justice Moran stated:
Action is the act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while special proceeding is the act by which one seeks to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact.
Hence, action is distinguished from special proceeding in that the former is a formal demand of a right by one against another, while the latter is but a petition for a declaration of a status, right, or fact.
Where a party litigant seeks to recover property from another, his remedy is to file an action.
Where his purpose is to seek the appointment of a guardian for an insane, his remedy is a special proceeding to establish the fact or status of insanity calling for an appointment of guardianship.
Notes:
In rem
action against the thing
the property itself is the defendant
In personam
action against the person
require personal jurisdiction over the defendant
Quasi-in rem
person is identified for purpose of subjecting his interest to the obligation
the defendant is a person, but the court only has jurisdiction over a specific piece of their property
Nature of Special Proceedings
Generally, special proceedings are non-adversarial in nature, because there is no definite adverse party in such proceedings.
For this reason, it is entitled, for example, as "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of ... " or "In Re: Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem of the Minors ... "
It may remain non-adversarial until the case is concluded, or it may also happen that it is transformed into an adversarial proceeding, such as when there are oppositors to the petition.
Section 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. — Rules of special proceedings are provided for in the following cases:
(a) Settlement of estate of deceased persons;
(b) Escheat;
(c) Guardianship and custody of children;
(d) Trustees;
(e) Adoption;
(f) Rescission and revocation of adoption;
(g) Hospitalization of insane persons;
(h) Habeas corpus;
(i) Change of name;
(j) Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
(k) Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children;
(l) Constitution of family home;
(m) Declaration of absence and death;
(n) Cancellation of correction of entries in the civil registry.
SEGTAR-HHCCJ-CDC
Subject Matter
Rule 72, Section 1 is not meant to be an exclusive list of what may be considered as special proceedings.
As long as the remedy seeks the establishment of a right, status, or a particular fact, then such may be called a special proceeding, regardless of whether it is included in the foregoing enumeration.
For instance, a petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation, such as a bank, was classified as a special proceeding resembling a petition for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person.
The issue whether such petition for liquidation is an ordinary civil action or a special proceeding was resolved in Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization v. Court of Appeals in this wise:
A petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation should be classified as a special proceeding and not an ordinary action.
Such petition does not seek the enforcement or protection of a right nor the prevention or redress of a wrong against a party.
It does not pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from a party's wrongful act or omission nor state a cause of action that can be enforced against any person.
What it seeks is merely a declaration by the trial court of the corporation's insolvency so that its creditors may be able to file their claims in the settlement of the corporation's debts and obligations.
Likewise, a petition for annulment of marriage is a special proceeding since it seeks to establish a status or right or a particular fact.
In the same vein, questions as to who are the heirs of the decedent, proof of filiation of illegitimate children, and the determination of the estate of the decedent have to be decided in a probate court or in a special proceeding, and cannot be adjudicated in an ordinary action for recovery of ownership and possession.
Other special proceedings under various laws
Summary proceedings under the Family Code
Actions mentioned in the Family Courts Act of 1997, such as:
Declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages
Legal separation
Provisional orders on support custody of minor children and administration of common property
Violence against women and their children and protection orders
Proceedings under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, Child Abuse Act, and Child Employment Act, such as:
Declaration of status as abandoned, dependent, or neglected children
Voluntary or involuntary commitment of children
Suspension, termination or restoration of parental authority
Domestic adoptions
Inter-country adoption
Corporate rehabilitation
Liquidation
Writ of Amparo
Writ of Habeas Data
Writ of Kalikasan
Arbitration
Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award
Section 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. —
In the absence of special provisions,
the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be,
as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings.
Applicability of Rules
Like civil actions, the rules on special proceedings must be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every proceeding.
This is premised on Section 2, which provides that the rules for ordinary actions shall be applicable to special proceedings, save in cases where special provisions exist and provide otherwise.
As a result, the Supreme Court has held that the provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly on:
preparation, filing and service of applications, motions, and other papers
omnibus motion rule
subpoena
computation of time
motion for new trial
modes of discovery
trial before commissioners
demurrer to evidence
also apply to special proceedings.
In fact, the procedure of appeal in special proceedings should follow the procedure of appeal in civil actions, to wit:
Moreover, Section 2, Rule 73, of the Rules of Court provides that the rules on ordinary civil actions are applicable in special proceedings where they are not inconsistent with or when they may serve to supplement the provisions relating to special proceedings.
Consequently, the procedure of appeal is the same in civil actions as in special proceedings.
Since a special proceeding is not a suit or ordinary action whereby a party sues another for the enforcement of a right or the prevention of a wrong, the requirement that no suit shall be fled or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. does not apply to a special proceeding.
Furthermore, in Sheker v. Estate of Alice O. Sheker, the Supreme Court ruled that a certification against forum shopping is required in special proceedings, viz.:
This means that in the absence of special provisions, rules in ordinary actions may be applied in special proceedings as much as possible and where doing so would not pose an obstacle to said proceedings.
Nowhere in the Rules of Court does it categorically say that rules in ordinary actions are inapplicable or merely suppletory to special proceedings.
Provisions of the Rules of Court requiring a certification of non-forum shopping for complaints and initiatory pleadings, a written explanation for nonpersonal service and filing, and the payment of filing fees for money claims against an estate would not in any way obstruct probate proceedings, thus, they are applicable to special proceedings such as the settlement of the estate of a deceased person as in the present case.
Cases:
Matute vs CA (26 SCRA 768, 1969)
This case involves the Amadeo Matute Olave estate and the disputes among the Matute heirs (15) delaying the estate settlement for over a decade
Carlos S. Matute petitioned to remove Matias Matute as co-administrator for incompetence and negligence and pending murder charge.
Matias opposed, arguing his accountings were approved and denying the relevance of a criminal charge against him.
Other heirs supported Matias’ removal, citing tax non-payment, financial mismanagement, and unauthorized disbursements.
The probate court received evidence from Carlos Matute and other heirs.
Matias filed a demurrer.
Probate Court: Removed Matias and appointed Jose S. Matute.
Matias appealed.
CA: Issued a preliminary injunction.
Jose S. Matute challenged the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction, arguing the estate’s value exceeded P200,000, placing it under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction (P2,132,282.72).
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals:
The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction over the estate belonged to the Supreme Court due to its value exceeding P200,000.
Validity of Probate Court’s Order:
Matias' removal was invalid due to lack of due process, as no proper hearing was conducted.
The probate court has broad discretion to remove an administrator under Section 2 of Rule 82.
Appellate courts generally defer to the probate court’s decision unless there is clear error or abuse of discretion.
In this case, the administrator was removed without due process, warranting the nullification of the removal order.
Applicability of Rule 35 (Demurrer to Evidence) in Special Proceedings
A case should not be decided solely on the movant’s evidence without giving the opposing party a chance to present their side.
Rule 35 allows a defendant to file a demurrer without waiving their right to present evidence if the motion is denied.
Rule 72 allows rules in ordinary civil actions to apply to special proceedings when practicable.
Appointment of an Administrator
Proper notice and hearing are essential before appointing an administrator to ensure due process.
A hearing is necessary to determine the qualifications of the applicant and allow oppositors to contest the appointment.
If there is still a general administrator in place, the court cannot appoint a new one without following due process.
Lim vs CA (323 SCRA 102)
Petitioner Rufina Luy Lim is the surviving spouse of the late Pastor Y. Lim, whose estate is the subject of probate proceedings.
Rufina Luy Lim, represented by her nephew George Luy, filed a joint petition for the administration of Pastor Y. Lim’s estate.
The properties of the private respondent corporations were included in the inventory of Pastor Y. Lim’s estate. Private respondents filed motions to lift the lis pendens annotation and to exclude their properties from the estate inventory.
RTC: Initially granted the private respondents’ motions but reversed its earlier order, reinstating the lis pendens annotation and including the properties in the estate inventory.
The issue involved piercing the corporate veil, which was within its jurisdiction.
Issued an order directing banks to produce records of accounts in the names of Pastor Y. Lim and the corporations.
CA: Ruled that RTC acted without jurisdiction in including the corporate properties in the estate inventory and in ordering the production of bank records.
Power of Probate Courts:
Probate courts can make provisional determinations on property title to decide whether a property should be included in the estate inventory.
However, these decisions are not final and can be contested in separate actions.
Ownership issues can only be resolved with finality through ordinary civil proceedings, not probate proceedings.
Torrens Title and Ownership:
Property covered by Torrens title is presumed to be conclusively owned by the registered title holder unless the title is annulled in a direct action.
The probate court cannot modify or question the validity of Torrens titles in the context of estate administration.
Corporate Personality and Veil-Piercing:
Corporations are separate legal entities from their stockholders, and their assets are distinct from those of the individuals behind them.
Piercing the corporate veil is possible only if fraud or illegal activity is demonstrated and must be done through a proper action.
Mere ownership of a corporation by an individual or another corporation is not sufficient to pierce the corporate veil.
Evidence and Admissibility:
Affidavits are considered hearsay evidence and are generally inadmissible unless the affiant is presented in court for cross-examination.
The affidavits submitted in this case lacked probative value and were inadmissible.
Manalo vs Court of Appeals (GR No. 129242, January 16, 2001)
Troadio Manalo, a resident of Manila, died intestate on February 14, 1992. He was survived by his wife, Pilar S. Manalo, and eleven children.
Eight of Troadio Manalo's children filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila for the judicial settlement of their father's estate and the appointment of Romeo Manalo as administrator.
Pilar S. Vda. De Manalo, and other children (3) opposed the petition on various grounds, including and failure to show earnest efforts toward a compromise among family members.
RTC: Denied the petitioners' motion, ruling that it had jurisdiction over the case and that the petition for judicial settlement was valid.
CA: Affirmed the RTC's orders.
Special Proceedings vs. Ordinary Civil Actions:
The nature of an action is determined by the averments in the complaint or petition and the relief sought.
The petition for judicial settlement was a special proceeding aimed at establishing the status, rights, and facts related to the estate of the deceased, not an adversarial civil action.
Applicability of Article 222 of the Civil Code
Article 222 (now Article 151 of the Family Code) applies only to ordinary civil actions involving members of the same family.
It does not apply to special proceedings like the settlement of an estate, which are non-adversarial in nature.
Jurisdiction of Probate Courts
Probate courts have limited jurisdiction and cannot hear collateral matters that are proper for ordinary civil actions.
The petitioners' attempt to convert the special proceeding into an ordinary civil action by raising irrelevant defenses was improper.
Liberal Construction of Rules
The petitioners' argument that Rule 1, Section 2 of the Rules of Court (liberal construction of rules) should allow the application of Article 222 to special proceedings was rejected.
The Court clarified that Article 222 is explicitly applicable only to civil actions, not to special proceedings.