CASE DIGEST: Baybayan v. Aquino; G.R. No. L-42678 ; 9 April 1987

Baybayan v. Aquino

G.R. No. L-42678

9 April 1987

Padilla, J.

 

Doctrine: The Court of First Instance (now RTC), acting, as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate issues concerning the ownership of land alleged to be part of the decedent’s estate and claimed by some other person by virtue of adverse claim and not by virtue of right of inheritance. Such issue must be submitted before the CFI (now RTC) in the exercise of its general jurisdiction (ordinary civil action)

Further, the probate court’s determination of ownership of the lot is not final or ultimate in nature and is without prejudice to the right of an interested party to raise the question of ownership in a proper action.

 

Facts:

The private respondents Padua et.al filed a petition for the summary settlement of Vicente Oria before the CFI Pangasinan. They were claiming that they were nephews and nieces of the decedent who died intestate sometime in 1945. The value of the decedent’s estate did not exceed P6,000.00.

After due publication and hearing, the probate court adjudicated the estate to the heirs and ordered them to submit a project of partition.

The said adjudication was confirmed and ordered Eulalia Evangelista to deliver the respective shares of her co-heirs; to make an accounting of the produce thereof; and to deliver said produce to her co-heirs or pay its equivalent. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued.

Later on, a writ of possession was issued in favor of the private respondents and placed them in possession of their respective shares. However, the representative of the private respondents was prevented to cultivate the portion adjudicated by Jose Diaz and Cipriano Evangelista. Thus, they filed a motion to cite the latter in contempt court.

Thus, herein petitioners, filed a complaint before the CFI for quieting of title against the Deputy Sheriff and herein private respondents and to restrain them from enforcing the writ of execution. They were claiming that they were the registered owners of the involved lots.

Meanwhile, in the case for contempt, the identity of the land was put in issue. Thus, the probate court ordered a relocation survey and commissioned a geodetic engineer to undertake said survey. Thereafter, it found out that the lands delivered by the sheriff pursuant to the writ of possession issued by the probate court are registered in the names of herein petitioners under TCTs. Hence, the petition for contempt was dismissed.

Likewise, the same court ordered the petitioners to amend their complaint filed in a Civil Case since it is necessary that an amended complaint be filed by Pedro Baybayan in order to determine whether or not the property in question is part of the property under Summary Settlement of the Estate, inasmuch as it is now the property claimed by him which is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 50269.

Consequently, herein petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion. But the Respondent Judge found that the Amended Complaint did not comply with his order not to include Lot E considering that the Probate Court found that the same is owned by the petitioners. Thus, dismissed the case, "without prejudice on the part of the plaintiffs to file a proper complaint for the recovery of ownership or possession of the property in controversy which is Lot B in the relocation plan and formerly covered by an OCT, now under a TCT.

Then the petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

 

ISSUE: Whether the probate court’s determination of ownership of the lot is final or ultimate in nature and is without prejudice to the right of an interested party to raise the question of ownership in a proper action.

 

Ruling: No. The probate court’s determination of ownership of the lot is not final or ultimate in nature and is without prejudice to the right of an interested party to raise the question of ownership in a proper action.

The findings of the respondent Judge as to the ownership of Lot E after the hearing conducted in the summary settlement of the decedent’s estate do not justify the order to amend the complaint.

The Supreme Court held that when questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate of a deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased, but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be determined in the courts of administrative proceedings. The Court of First Instance, acting, as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a court of first instance.