Not many know of the proceedings known as Escheat which can be initiated by the government in order to claim properties of deceased individuals. The Rules of Court states that “Escheat is a proceeding whereby the real and personal property of a deceased person in the Philippines, who died without leaving any will or legal heirs, become the property of the state upon his death.” Of course there are rules when it comes to succession which is quite complicated especially if the deceased died without a will and without children or parents or even siblings. This matter will have to be discussed some other time but for now we learn about escheat. This is a proceeding to be initiated by the government by filing a petition before the Regional Trial Court where the deceased was a resident or where his properties are located if a non-resident. Escheat can also be applied if the deceased is a foreign national just like the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. CA (G.R. No. 14383, January 31 2002).
Escheat
Hankins was a French national who live in the Philippines and without any relatives except for a Filipino national Solano, who was her constant companion especially during the end part of her life. After Hankin’s death, the Republic instituted an escheat proceedings on her estate involving several parcels of land since it was apparent that the deceased had no relatives in the Philippines. The trial court rendered its decision escheating the properties of the late Hankin and the real properties of the latter were transferred to the City of Pasay. Sometime after, Solano allegedly was able to recover the deed of donation supposedly executed by the late Hankin involving the escheated properties. The escheat proceedings could not be valid. The City of Pasay is not also entitled to claim the property since it should be the Republic which should be the owner of the properties.
The Escheat was Valid
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Republic. First, the claim of Solano was made after the lapse of 5 years from the date of the decision. On the question of whether the properties should have been excluded since they were already donated to Solano, the Court ruled in favor of the State. During the escheat proceedings, the subject real properties were in the name of the deceased and not conveyed in favor of the alleged donee Solano. This being so, the trial court was correct in escheating the properties in favor of the government. The claim that the deed of donation proves the fact that the properties were already donated cannot overturn the rule that claims against the estate can no longer be entertained after the lapse of the five-year period. Unfortunately, the former constant companion of the deceased who helped her during her twilight years could not validly claim the properties allegedly donated to her by Hankin. As a consolation, the properties are now owned by the government which is for the enjoyment and benefit of the public.