Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
G.R. No. 139587 – 399 Phil. 282 – 345 SCRA 541 – Civil Law – Wills and Succession – Jurisdiction of the Probate Court
The spouses Ismael and Felisa Reyes owned two parcels of land (Lot A and Lot B) collectively referred to as the Arayat properties located in Arayat, Cubao, Quezon City.
In 1973, Ismael died intestate. He was survived by his wife Felisa, his children Oscar Reyes, Cesar Reyes, and five other children. Before his death however, Lot A was forfeited in favor of the government due to his failure to pay the tax.
In 1976, Oscar was able to redeem the said property.
In 1982, Lot B was also forfeited again in favor of the government due to Felisa’s failure to pay taxes. In 1986, Oscar was again able to redeem Lot B.
In 1989, Cesar (brother of Oscar) filed a petition to be the administrator of the estate of Ismael which consists of the 50% of the Arayat properties. Oscar filed his opposition thereto on the ground that the estate Ismael was no longer the owner of the said properties and that in fact Oscar became the owner because he was the one who redeemed the Arayat properties; that the other heirs abandoned their shares; that Cesar’s petition was filed belatedly because he only filed it 16 years after the death of their father.
The probate court however allowed the petition of Cesar and approved the inclusion of the Arayat properties into the estate of Ismael.
ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the probate court is proper.
HELD: Yes. The jurisdiction of the probate court merely relates to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of deceased persons, and the appointment and removal of administrators, executors, guardians and trustees. The question of ownership is as a rule, an extraneous matter which the Probate Court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate proceeding, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title.
The foregoing rule however provides for an exception, that is: if the claimant and all other parties having legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the question to the Probate Court for adjudgment, or the interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced. In this case, not all parties, not all heirs, gave their consent to the probate court.
