Short answer. Yes, but only within five years from when the property was delivered to the State. If a rightful heir files a claim in that window, Article 1014 of the Civil Code entitles them to the property itself, or, if it was already sold, to the sale proceeds the municipality or city has not yet lawfully spent.
What the law says
If a person legally entitled to the estate of the deceased appears and files a claim thereto with the court within five years from the date the property was delivered to the State, such person shall be entitled to the possession of the same
Civil Code, Article 1014 — A Claimant Appearing Later. Read the full provision →
What the law says
if sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him for such part of the proceeds as may not have been lawfully spent
Civil Code, Article 1014 — A Claimant Appearing Later. Read the full provision →
The five-year window to claim
Article 1014 of the Civil Code gives an overlooked heir a real second chance, but only within a fixed period. It provides that if a person legally entitled to the estate of the deceased appears and files a claim thereto with the court within five years from the date the property was delivered to the State, such person shall be entitled to the possession of the same. The clock runs from the date the property was actually turned over to the State, not from the date your relative died or from when you first learned of the escheat, so confirming that date precisely matters before you assume your window has closed.
If the property has already been sold
The same article anticipates exactly your situation, where the property no longer exists in the State's hands because it has already been sold. The law does not leave you without recourse: if sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him for such part of the proceeds as may not have been lawfully spent. You are not entitled to force a reversal of the sale itself, but you can still pursue the money the sale generated, to the extent the municipality or city still holds it.
What 'lawfully spent' limits your recovery
Your recovery is capped by how much of the sale proceeds the municipality or city can still account for. If the local government had already applied part of the proceeds to a purpose the law allowed before your claim was filed, that portion is gone, and Article 1014 does not require it to be replaced out of other public funds. What remains recoverable is the unspent balance, or any part spent without lawful basis, which is why the accounting the municipality or city gives in response to your claim matters as much as the fact of the sale itself.
Filing within the escheat proceeding itself
The claim under Article 1014 is filed with the court, and it must be the same proceeding through which the property was escheated to the State — a continuation of that case, not a fresh lawsuit against the municipality or city on your own terms. Because the right depends on proving you were legally entitled to the estate as an heir, gathering proof of your relationship to the deceased before filing strengthens your position, since the court needs to be satisfied of your entitlement, not only of the five-year timing.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Republic of the Philippines represented by the Register of Deeds of Pasay City vs. Court of Appeals and Amada H. Solano, et. al, G.R. No. 143483, January 31, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →