Currículo nacional proyectos creativos

4.10. ESCHEAT What is escheat?

Escheat proceedings refer to the judicial process in which the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claims abandoned, left vacant, or unclaimed property, without there being an interested person having a legal claim thereto. (Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz R. Bakunawa., G.R. No. 192413, June 13, 2012)

Escheat is a proceeding, unlike that of succession or assignment, whereby the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claims the real or personal property of a person who dies intestate leaving no heir.

Since escheat is one of the incidents of sovereignty, the state may, and usually does, prescribe the conditions and limits the time within which a claim to such property may be made. (RP vs. CA & Solano, G.R. No.

143483, January 31, 2002) Nature of Escheat proceeding

Accordingly, the CA committed reversible error when it ruled that the issuance of individual notices upon respondents was a jurisdictional requirement, and that failure to effect personal service on them rendered the Decision and the Order of the RTC void for want of jurisdiction. Escheat proceedings are actions in rem, whereby an action is brought against the thing itself instead of the person. Thus, an action may be instituted and carried to judgment without personal service upon the depositors or other claimants. Jurisdiction is secured by the power of the court over the res.^]Consequently, a judgment of escheat is conclusive upon persons notified by advertisement, as publication is considered a general and constructive notice to all persons interested. (Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz R. Bakunawa., G.R. No. 192413, June 13, 2012)

OBJECTIVE OF ESCHEAT PROCEEDINGS

It is not the intent of the law to force depositors into unnecessary litigation and defense of their rights, as the state is only interested in escheating balances that have been abandoned and left without an owner.

x x x We reiterate our pronouncement that the objective of escheat proceedings is state forfeiture of unclaimed balances. x x x Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz R. Bakunawa., G.R. No. 192413, June 13, 2012)

4.10.1. WHEN TO FILE?

When a person dies intestate, seized of real or personal property in the Philippines, leaving no heir or person by law entitled to the same, the Solicitor General or his representative in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, may file a petition in the Court of First Instance of the province where the deceased last resided

or in which he had estate, if he resided out of the Philippines, setting forth the facts, and praying that the estate of the deceased be declared escheated. (Section 1, Rule 91)

Dormant accounts subject of escheat

In the case of dormant accounts, the state inquires into the status, custody, and ownership of the unclaimed balance to determine whether the inactivity was brought about by the fact of death or absence of or abandonment by the depositor. If after the proceedings the property remains without a lawful owner interested to claim it, the property shall be reverted to the state “to forestall an open invitation to self-service by the first comers.” However, if interested parties have come forward and lain claim to the property, the courts shall determine whether the credit or deposit should pass to the claimants or be forfeited in favor of the state. We emphasize that escheat is not a proceeding to penalize depositors for failing to deposit to or withdraw from their accounts. It is a proceeding whereby the state compels the surrender to it of unclaimed deposit balances when there is substantial ground for a belief that they have been abandoned, forgotten, or without an owner. (Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz R. Bakunawa., G.R. No. 192413, June 13, 2012)

Parties in a petition for Escheat:

Rule 91 of the Revised rules of Court, which provides that ONLY the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, may commence escheat proceedings, did not take effect until January 1, 1964.

They shall govern all cases brought after they take effect, and also all further proceedings in cases pending, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former procedure shall apply. (Tan vs. City of Davao, G.R. No. L-44347 September 29, 1988)

"Interested party" in an escheat proceeding -

In a special proceeding for escheat under sections 750 and 751 the petitioner is not the sole and exclusive interested party. Any person alleging to have a direct right or interest in the property sought to be escheated is likewise an interested party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat. (RP vs. CA &

Solano, G.R. No. 143483, January 31, 2002) Real party in interest:

A "real party in interest" has been defined as the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit or the party entitled to avail of the suit. There can be no doubt that private respondent bank falls under this definition for the escheat of the dormant deposits in favor of the government would necessarily deprive said bank of the use of such deposits. (RP vs. CFI of Manila, G.R. No. L-30381 August 30, 1988)

The jurisdiction acquired cannot be converted into one for the distribution of the properties of the said decedents. For such proceedings (for the distribution of the estate of the decedents) to be instituted, the proper parties must be presented and the proceedings should comply with the requirements of the Rule.

(Mun. of Magallon, Negros Occ. vs. Bezore, G.R. No. L-14157, October 26, 1960) 4.10.2. REQUISITES FOR FILING OF PETITION:

1) That a person died intestate;

2) That he left no heirs or persons by law entitled to the same; and

3) The deceased left properties. ( City of Manila vs. Archbishop of Manila, GR 10033, August 30, 1917 )

Requirement of publication and notice

Hence, insofar as banks are concerned, service of processes is made by delivery of a copy of the complaint and summons upon the president, cashier, or managing officer of the defendant bank.^[8] On the other hand, as to depositors or other claimants of the unclaimed balances, service is made by publication of a copy of the summons in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality where the institution is situated^. A notice about the forthcoming escheat proceedings must also be issued and published, directing and requiring all persons who may claim any interest in the unclaimed balances to appear before the court and show cause why the dormant accounts should not be deposited with the Treasurer. (Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz R. Bakunawa., G.R. No. 192413, June 13, 2012)

Effects of judgment in escheat proceedings:

A judgment in escheat proceedings when rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive against all persons with actual or constructive notice, but not against those who are not parties or privies thereto. Absolute lack on the part of petitioners of any dishonest intent to deprive the appellee of any right, or in any way injure him, constitutes due process of law, proper notice having been observed. (RP vs. CA &

Solano, G.R. No. 143483, January 31, 2002)

4.10.3. REMEDY OF RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONER; PERIOD FOR FILING A CLAIM:

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 punctilious in asserting their claims, otherwise they may lose them forever in a final judgment. (RP vs. CA & Solano, G.R. No. 143483, January 31, 2002)

Motion to dismiss available when the petition for escheat is groundless:

When a petition for escheat is clearly groundless for the court to proceed to the inquisition provided by law, an interested party should not be disallowed from filing a motion to dismiss the petition which is untenable from all standpoints. And when the motion to dismiss is entertained upon this ground, the petition may be dismissed unconditionally and the petitioner is not entitled to be afforded an opportunity to amend his petition. (Go Poco Grocery vs. Pacific Biscuit Co., G.R. Nos. L-43697 and L-442200, March 31, 1938, 65 Phil. 443).

4.11. GUARDIANSHIP:

Rule governing guardianship of minors and incompetent:

Rules 92-97 of the Revised Rules of Court originally governs the Guardianship of a minor and incompetent both as to their person and property. However, by virtue of Administrative matter no. 03-02-05 SC (AM no. 03-02-05 SC) , the Supreme Court retained in the meantime Rule 92-97 to be applied only to Guardianship of an Incompetent other than a minor. Effectively, guardianship would be treated in two parts, one pursuant to Administrative matter no. 03-02-05 SC which deals with Guardianship of Minors and the other refers to the Guardianship of Incompetents under Rules 92-97.

Also, in Guardianship of Minors, it is the Family Court of the place where the minor resides or if a non-resident, with the Family Court of the place where the minor’s property or part thereof is situated, which has jurisdiction over the guardianship proceeding. (as can be gleaned from the provisions of RA 8369) On the other hand, with regard to Guardianship of Incompetents, it is the RTC of the place where the incompetent resides or if a non-resident, with the RTC of the place where the incompetent’s property or part thereof is situated, which has jurisdiction over the guardianship proceeding for such incompetent. (Special

Proceedings: Annotations by Herrera, 2007 Edition, page 232)

Purpose of guardianship?

A guardianship is designed to further the ward’s well-being, not that of the guardian. It is intended to preserve the ward’s property, as well as to render any assistance that the ward may personally require. It has been stated that while custody involves immediate care and control, guardianship indicates not only those responsibilities, but those of one in loco parentis as well. (Oropesa vs. Oropesa, G.R. No. 184528, April 25, 2012)

Basis of guardianship of minor:

Where minors are involved, the State acts as parens patriae which is inherent in the supreme power of every State, whether that power is lodged in a royal person or in the legislature, and has no affinity to those arbitrary powers which are sometimes exerted by irresponsible monarchs to the great detriment of the people and the destruction of their liberties. On the contrary, it is a most beneficent function, and often necessary to be exercised in the interest of humanity, and for the prevention of injury to those who cannot protect themselves." (De Leon vs. Lorenzo, Gr L-23096 April 27, 1972)

NATURAL GUARDIAN VS. JUDICIAL GUARDIAN : POWER TO DISPOSE OR ENCUMBER THE PROPERTY