PETITION FOR ORDER DETERMINING ENTITLEMENT TO ESCHEATED PROPERTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 26CV183693: IN THE MATTER OF: ESTATE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 06/04/2026 Hearing on Petition PETITION FOR ORDER DETERMINING ENTITLEMENT TO ESCHEATED PROPERTY; filed by Estate Research Associates (Petitioner) CRS# 443372120723 in Department 512 Tentative Ruling - 06/02/2026 Elizabeth Riles The Hearing on Petition PETITION FOR ORDER DETERMINING ENTITLEMENT TO ESCHEATED PROPERTY; filed by Estate Research Associates (Petitioner) CRS# 443372120723 scheduled for 06/04/2026 is continued to 07/09/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 512 at Hayward Hall of Justice.
On petitioner Estate Research Associates (ERA) Petition to Determine Entitlement to Escheated Funds, the Court CONTINUES THE HEARING TO Thursday, 7/9/2026 at 2:30 p.m. in Dept. 512, so that ERA and heir Joel Eclevia Nato (Joel Nato) may 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. ERA brings this petition pursuant to CCP §§ 1355 and 401.
ERA is apparently in the business of finding heirs for estates of decedents that have escheated as unclaimed funds to the California State Controller’s office. ERA states that it will receive 35% of the escheated estate if successful on this petition. The relevant decedent is Ciezar Mediario Nato, who died intestate on 9/21/2020 in San Diego County. He left no surviving spouse or any issue. He was born in the Philippines in 1950 and became a U.S. citizen in 1982. The balance of his estate is $96,872.17.
San Diego County Counsel filed a Report of Proceedings under Probate Code Secs. 7660-7666 on 5/11/2022, formally escheating the estate to the State Controller’s Office. The present Petition filed on 4/23/2026 is timely brought within 5 years of the 5/11/2022 date of the Report of Proceedings. (CCP § 1355.) ERA located an heir in the Philippines named Joel Eclevia Nato, a paternal nephew of Decedent. Joel Nato is age 43. His father, now also deceased, is Jose Mediario Nato (Jose Nato), who died at age 70 in 2025.
It appears from the record that ERA initially located Jose M. Nato, but that he died before ERA could file a petition on his behalf and therefore elected to bring the Petition on behalf of Joel Nato, Jose Natos son. The State Controller’s office was duly served with the petition and notice of hearing, and the Controller’s Office responded that it does not object to the petition.
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?”
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 26CV183693: IN THE MATTER OF: ESTATE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 06/04/2026 Hearing on Petition PETITION FOR ORDER DETERMINING ENTITLEMENT TO ESCHEATED PROPERTY; filed by Estate Research Associates (Petitioner) CRS# 443372120723 in Department 512 dates of their respective births, the place and date of their marriage, the full names of all children the issue of such marriage, with the date of birth of each, and the place and date of death of all children of such marriage who have died unmarried and without issue." "Whether any of the brothers or sisters of such decedent every married, and, if so, where, when and whom. "The full names, and the places and dates of birth of all children who are the issue of the marriage of any such brother or sister of the decedent, and the date and place of death of all deceased nephews and nieces of said decedent. "If, for any reason, the petitioner is unable to set forth any of the matters or things hereinbefore required, he shall clearly state such reason in his petition."
The Petition indicates that at the time of Jose Nato’s birth in 1955, his and decedent’s mother had 13 children, eight of whom were then living. The Petition does not name any of Joel Nato’s paternal aunts and uncles (Decedent’s siblings), if living, any of Joel Nato’s first cousins on his paternal side or his own siblings, if any. The Petition does not clearly state the reason why neither ERA nor Joel Nato can identify other similarly situated heirs of Decedent, and no declarations are provided containing the names of living heirs known to Joel Nato or clearly stating that he has no knowledge of any other living heirs.
Joel Nato would likely have at least some knowledge of his surviving paternal aunts, uncles, first cousins and his own siblings, if any. The moving brief cites to Estate of James McGuigan (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 639 for the proposition that a petitioning heir is entitled to receive the escheated funds on a first-come, firstserved basis. However, that case involved a niece who claimed the escheated estate without disclosing that the decedent had had a son. Still within the 5-year period to bring this type of petition, the administrator of the son’s estate filed a petition to vacate the judgment in favor of niece and her brother/nephew on the basis that son lived until six years after decedent’s death and on the grounds of extrinsic fraud.
The trial court denied the son’s estate’s petition, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that "The deliberate failure to specify a known and closer heir, in violation of section 1355, constitutes extrinsic fraud sufficient to vacate the judgment under the circumstances of this case." (83 Cal.App.4th at 649.) No later than Thursday, 7/2/2026, ERA shall file one or more competent declarations regarding any other living heirs known to it or to Joel Nato or declaring that neither knows of the existence of any other living heirs of Decedent.
CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 26CV183693: IN THE MATTER OF: ESTATE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 06/04/2026 Hearing on Petition PETITION FOR ORDER DETERMINING ENTITLEMENT TO ESCHEATED PROPERTY; filed by Estate Research Associates (Petitioner) CRS# 443372120723 in Department 512 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