PETITION FOR ORDER DETERMINING ENTITLEMENT TO ESCHEATED PROPERTY
26CV183693: IN THE MATTER OF: ESTATE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 07/09/2026 Hearing on Petition PETITION FOR ORDER DETERMINING ENTITLEMENT TO ESCHEATED PROPERTY; filed by Estate Research Associates (Petitioner) CRS# 443372120723 in Department 512
Tentative Ruling - 07/08/2026 Elizabeth Riles
The Petition Petition for Order Determining Entitlement to Escheated Property and Ordering Payment to Entitled Parties filed by Estate Research Associates on 04/23/2026 is Granted.
Petitioner Estate Research Associates (ERA) Petition to Determine Entitlement to Escheated Funds is GRANTED.
The Court continued the initial hearing date, so that ERA and heir Joel Eclevia Nato (Joel Nato) could submit one or more competent declarations regarding other living heirs of decedent Ciezar Mediario Nato (Decedent) known to ERA or Joel Nato or declaring the fact that ERA and Joel Nato are not aware of any other living heirs of Decedent, pursuant to the requirements of CCP § 1355. Joel Nato has done so. The newly identified heirs appear to all reside in the Philippines and appear to have the same interest in the estate as Joel Nato, as the siblings of Decedent or the living children of Decedents siblings.
Although the law is not entirely clear how the trial court should proceed when there are other heirs to an escheated estate that are known to the claimant heir (here Joel Nato) and the five-year period for these other known heirs to assert a claim for the escheated estate has not run, the law does appear to favor distribution of the escheated funds to the first legitimate heir to file a timely claim. (See Parage v. Couedal (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1043, stating in relevant part: Once the trial court determines that petitioners are heirs, they are entitled to immediate distribution of the escheated estate to free the state from the burden of managing the estate.)
In Parage, supra, third cousin heirs timely brought a petition to recover the decedents escheated funds on 7/25/1996. Judgment entered in their favor on 9/11/1996. On 1/15/1997, within five years of decedents 4/7/1992 death, respondent first cousin of decedent brought a motion on behalf of herself and another first cousin claiming that they were each entitled to one-third shares of the estate because they had not received notice of the petitioners petition. The Court of Appeal ultimately found that petitioners were entitled to the funds without reduction because they were the first to file a petition, the petition had been rendered to a judgment, and all possible heirs had received constructive notice by publication in accordance with the Probate Code of the escheat of the decedents estate to the State of California.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, the Petition at Exh. 1 contains evidence that on 5/11/2022, a Report of Proceedings under Probate Code § 7660 et seq. was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court. This appears to constitute public notice sufficient to start the clock running on the five-year period for heirs to claim decedents escheated estate. ERA on behalf of heir Joel Nato timely filed the present Petition on 4/23/2026. The Court finds that the evidence presented by ERA and Joel Nato is sufficient to establish his status as an heir of Decedent. 26CV183693: IN THE MATTER OF: ESTATE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 07/09/2026 Hearing on Petition PETITION FOR ORDER DETERMINING ENTITLEMENT TO ESCHEATED PROPERTY; filed by Estate Research Associates (Petitioner) CRS# 443372120723 in Department 512
Wherefore, the Court GRANTS the Petition. The Court will execute and enter the [Proposed] Order submitted by ERA on 5/19/2026. If ERA wishes to submit a proposed form of Judgment for the Courts consideration, ERA should do so within five days of the 7/9/2026 hearing date.
CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS
PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.
To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:
First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.
Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."
Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.
TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:
Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:
Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931
1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free