Remedial Law

Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna vs. Colegio de San Jose, Inc.

Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.

image_printPrint this!

G.R. No. L-45460 – 65 Phil. 318 – Remedial Law – Special Proceedings – Rule 91; Escheat – Jurisdictional facts in a petition for escheat; Who may be Oppositors in an Escheat; Nature of Escheat

In 1936, the Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna, petitioned in court for the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasa be escheated in favor of the municipality.

The Municipality alleged that the property was confiscated by Spain, was turned over to the Americans, and later to the Philippines.

Colegio de San Jose, Inc. filed an opposition to the petition alleging that it is the owner of the hacienda. Carlos Young likewise filed an opposition alleging that he is a lessee in the hacienda by way of a contract with Colegio de San Jose


1. Whether or not Carlos Young has legal standing to oppose.
2. Whether or not the petition stated a cause of action.


1. Yes. Any person alleging to have a direct right or interest in the property sought to be escheated is likewise an interested and necessary party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat.

2. No. The municipality, based on its allegations, has no cause of action. In fact, it appears it has no personality to file the petition because its allegations are insufficient. From the allegations alone, it is no longer the case of real property owned by a deceased person who has not left any heirs or person who may legally claim it.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply