CASE DIGEST: Pio Barreto Realty Development v. CA; G.R. No. L-62431-33; 31 August 1984

Pio Barreto Realty Development v. CA

G.R. No. L-62431-33

31 August 1984

Gutierrez, Jr., J.:

 

Doctrine: Any ruling by the probate court to include properties in the inventory is only provisional in character and is without prejudice to a judgment in a separate action on the issue of title or ownership. Thus, the initial question of respondent regarding the propriety of including the properties in question in the inventory of the probate court as he claims ownership thereof may therein be finally and conclusively settled.

 

Facts:

Drepin died and left a holographic will. Shortly thereafter, a petition for the probate of the said will was initiated. In that will there were twenty-two (22) persons listed as his alleged creditors, and within the six (6) months after publication within which to file claims against the estate, twelve (12) persons filed their respective claims. The total amount of obligations that may be chargeable against the Drepin Estate is P1,299,652.66.

 

The only asset of the testate estate consists of three (3) parcels of titled land with an area of approximately eighty (80) hectares, and another parcel with an area of eighty-one (81) hectares still pending registration.

 

A contract of sale with mortgage was entered into by Drepin and GM management Phils through the private respondent. Before the agreement could be implemented, Drepin died. Thus, private respondent informed the Judicial Administrator that he is already the owner of the properties made subject matter of the Special Proceedings and proposed that he be permitted to pay the balance on the sale with mortgage. Then an undertaking was entered into to implement the said contract.

 

Then, the probate court authorized the Administrator to finalize the sale with GM Management Phils. and giving respondent Moslares ten (10) days from date to deposit the necessary amount to cover the value of the checks as each fallsdue. Failure to do so would result in the automatic rescission of the authority to sell to GM Management Phils. and the Administrator would be permitted to accept other offers in the best interest of the Estate.

 

Thus, GM Management Phils moved for reconsideration. While the administrator filed a report with motion to authorize administrator to screen Offers to Purchase Estate and Others. Consequently, the probate court authorized the administrator.

 

Subsequently, the administrator executed the Deed of Sale in favor of Pio Barretto Realty, Inc. transferring the titles to the properties in question in the name of the latter. The same was duly registered.

 

This prompted the private respondent to file a civil action before the CFI (now RTC) to determine title and ownership over the Drepin lands.

 

Then a petition for certiorari was filed before the CA which issued a TRO. Then judgment was rendered in favor of the private respondent. Thus, herein petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, the present petition.

 

Issue: Whether or not the probate court has jurisdiction over the parcels of land to include in the decedent’s estate which is subject matter of the deed of sale between the decedent and the private respondent (Moslares).

 

 

Ruling: Yes. The probate court may provisionally include properties in the inventory of the decedent estates.

 

Any ruling by the probate court to include those properties "is only provisional in character and is without prejudice to a judgment in a separate action on the issue of title or ownership.

 

Consequently, in reviewing the exercise of such limited probate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court cannot order an unqualified and final exclusion of the properties involved, as prayed for; to do so would expand the probate court's jurisdiction beyond the perimeters set by law and jurisprudence.

 

It is to be noted that the last agreement entered into by the deceased prior to his death, that is, the Joint Venture Agreement listing Drepin as owner of the properties in question, and the surrender to administrator Trinidad of the certificates of title, had led the probate court to enter or include said properties in its inventory of the deceased's estate. Thus, provisionally, ownership thereof was recognized as vested in the estate. Subsequently, in the course of the probate proceedings, the sale of the properties was found to be necessary to settle the deceased's obligations. It was then that herein private respondent Moslares submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court in an "Offer to Buy" said properties, based on his previous agreement with the deceased during the latter's lifetime.

It cannot but be conceded that the limited jurisdiction of a probate court prohibits it from determining rights to property left by a decedent which depends on the contract

Jurisdiction over the question of title and ownership of the properties, the respondents may bring a separate action if they wish to question the petitioner's titles and ownership. Though an order of the probate court approving the sale of the decedent's property is final, the respondent may file a complaint in the proper court for the rescission of the sale. Likewise, the initial question of respondent regarding the propriety of including the properties in question in the inventory of the probate court as he claims ownership thereof may therein be finally and conclusively settled.