30. Teresita C. Yaptinchay, petitioner vs. Hon. Guillermo E. Torres, Judge of the CFI of Rizal, Pasig, et. al.
,
respondents
G.R. No. L-26462
June 09, 1969
Sanchez, J.
En banc
Original petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
Facts:
Petitioner sought in the CFI of Rizal, Pasay City branch, her appointment first as Special Administratrix and
then as Regular Administratrix of the estate of Isidro Y. Yaptinchay who died in Hong Kong. Petitioner
alleged that the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay had lived with her continuously, openly and publicly as
husband and wife for nineteen (19) years. The deceased died without a will and left an estate consisting
of personal and real properties situated in the Philippines, Hong Kong and other places. To petitioner's
knowledge and information, the deceased left three daughters, Virginia, Mary and Asuncion, all of age.
Certain parties carted away from the residences personal properties belonging to the deceased together
with others exclusively owned by petitioner. Because of this incident, the appointment of a special
administrator to take custody and care of the interests of the deceased pending appointment of a regular
administrator became an urgent necessity. The court, on the basis of these allegations, issued an order
appointing petitioner to be the special administratrix of the estate of the deceased. Josefina Yaptinchay,
the alleged legitimate wife, as well as Ernesto Yaptinchay and other children of the deceased filed an
Opposition on the ground that petitioner not being an heir had no right to institute the proceeding for the
settlement of the estate and to procure her appointment as administratrix. They prayed that Virginia
Yaptinchay, daughter of the deceased, and Josefina Yaptinchay, the alleged surviving spouse, to be the
special and regular administratrix respectively. The probate court granted the prayer and named Virginia
as special administratrix. Included in her inventory is the North Forbes Park property. Petitioner then filed
in another branch of CFI of Rizal, Pasig branch, an action for replevin, liquidation of partnership and
damages. Judge Torres issued a TRO against private respondents and their agents restraining them from
disposing any of the properties and to not interfere with the possession of petitioner of the house in North
Forbes Park. Private respondents filed an opposition with preliminary injunction against petitioner to
further desist from disturbing Virginias possession and not to interfere with her powers of administration
over the assets of the estate of deceased Isidro, including which is the North Forbes Park property. The
court ruled in favor of respondents but later on amended its ruling finding favor in petitioner and enjoining
respondents from disposing, selling or encumbering the property.
Issue:
W/N the court committed grave abuse of discretion in directing petitioner to deliver the North Forbes
Park property to Special Administratrix, Virginia Yaptinchay, and to further refrain from interfering in its
possession.
W/N petitioner can claim ownership over the house in North Forbes Park.
Ruling:
From the evidence adduced, the Forbes Park house was held as among the properties of the deceased
placed under the administration of respondent Virginia Yaptinchay. Petitioner is not entitled to the
injunction she prayed for. In support of the allegation that the house in North Forbes Park was her
exclusive property, petitioner presented proof in the form of loans that she had contracted during the
period when said house was under construction. But evidence is wanting which would correlate such loans
to the construction work. The unsupported assertion that the North Forbes Park house is petitioner's
exclusive property may not be permitted to override the prima facie presumption that house, having been
constructed on the lot of Isidro Y. Yaptinchay (or of the conjugal partnership) at his instance, and during
the existence of his marriage with respondent Josefina Y. Yaptinchay, is part of the estate that should be
under the control of the special administratrix. On petitioners claim of ownership based on Article 144 of
the Civil Code, condition is that there must be a clear showing that the petitioner had, during cohabitation,
really contributed to the acquisition of the property involved. Until such right to co-ownership is duly
established, petitioner's interests in the property in controversy cannot be considered the "present right"
or title that would make available the protection or aid afforded by a writ of injunction. Petition is
dismissed.
