EDUARDO AGTARAP VS.

SEBASTIAN AGTARAP
GR No. 177099, June 8, 2011
FACTS:
Eduardo fi led with the RTC Br 114, Pasay, a verifi ed petition for the judicial settlement of
theestate of his father Joaquin Agtarap who died intestate without any known debts or obligations. During
hisl i f e t i m e , J o a q u i n c o n t r a c t e d t w o m a r r i a g e s , fi r s t w i t h L u c i a G a r c i a , a n d s e c
o n d w i t h C a r i d a d Garcia. Lucia died on April 24, 1924. Joaquin and Lucia had three childrenJesus (died
without issue),Milagros, and Jose (survived by three
children, namely, Gloria, Joseph, and Teresa). Joaquin marriedCaridad on February 9, 1926. They also
had three childrenEduardo, Sebastian, and Mercedes
(survived by her daughter Cecile). At the time of his death, Joaquin left two parcels of land with improvementsin
Pasay City.Eduardo alleged that the subject properties were owned by Joaquin and Caridad since
the TCTsstate that the lots were registered in the name of Joaquin Agtarap, married to Caridada Garcia.
However,Joseph, Gloria, and Teresa alleged that the two subject lots belong to the conjugal partnership of
Joaquinwith Lucia. They presented proof that the TCTs shown by Eduardo were derived from a mother title,
TCT No. 5239, dated March 17, 1920, in the name of Francisco Victor Barnes Y Joaquin Agtarap,
el primeroc a s a d o c o n E m i l i a M u s c a t , y e l S e g u n d o c o n L u c i a G a r c i a M e n d i e t t a
(FRANCISCO VICTOR BARNES y JOAQUIN AGTARAP, the first married to Emilia Muscat, and the second married
to LuciaGarcia Mendietta. When TCT No. 5239 was divided between Francisco Barnes and Joaquin
Agtarap,TCT No. 10864, in the name of Joaquin Agtarap, married to Lucia Garcia Mendietta, was
issued for
a parcel of land consisting of 8,872 square meters. This same lot was covered by TCT No. 5577( 3 2 1 8 4 ) i s s u e
d o n A p r i l 2 3 , 1 9 3 7 , a l s o i n t h e n a m e o f J o a q u i n A g t a r a p , m a r r i e d t o L u c i a G a r c i a Mendi
etta. This TCT contained an annotation that per the order dated April 28, 1937 of Hon. Sixto de
laC o s t a , p r e s i d i n g j u d g e o f t h e C o u r t o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e o f R i z a l , t h e p h
r a s e c o n L u c i a G a r c i a Mendiet[t]a was crossed out and replaced by en segundas nuptias con
Caridad Garcia, referring to thesecond marriage of Joaquin to Caridad. Thus, Joseph, Gloria, and Teresa
alleged that upon Lucias deathin April 1924, they became the pro indiviso owners of the subject
properties.T h e R T C i s s u e d a r e s o l u t i o n a p p o i n t i n g E d u a r d o a s r e g u l a r a d m i n i s t r a t
o r o f J o a q u i n s estate. Consequently, on October 23, 2000, the RTC issued an Order of
Partition after the parties weregiven the opportunity to be heard and to submit their respective
proposed projects of partition.RTC denied the motions for reconsideration of Eduardo and Sebastian, and
granting that of Josephand Teresa. It also declared that the real estate properties belonged to the conjugal
partnership of Joaquinand Lucia. It also directed the modifi cation of the October 23, 2000 Order of
Partition to refl ect thecorrect sharing of the heirs. However, before the RTC could issue a new order of
partition, Eduardo andSebastian both appealed to the CA. CA dismissed the appeals and the consequent motions
for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC, acting as an intestate court, have the power and authority to determinequestions of
ownership.
RESOLUTION:
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a probate or an intestate
court,relates only to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of
deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proc
eedings.As held in several cases, a probate court or one in charge of estate proceedings, whether testate
or intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which
areclaimed to belong to outside parties, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the
deceased but byt i t l e a d v e r s e t o t h a t o f t h e d e c e a s e d a n d h i s e s t a t e . A l l t h a t t h e s a i d
court could do as regards
s a i d properties is to determine whether or not they should be included in the inventory of properties to beadmi
nistered by the administrator. If there is no dispute, there poses no problem, but if there is, then
the parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action before a courtexerci
sing general jurisdiction for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title.However, this general rule is
subject to exceptions as justified by expediency and convenience.First, the probate court may
provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate proceeding thequestion of inclusion in,
or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to thefinal determination of
ownership in a separate action. Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to theestate, or the question is
one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired, then the probate court
isc o m p e t e n t t o r e s o l v e i s s u e s o n o w n e r s h i p . Ve r i l y , i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n e x t e n d s t o m a t t e r s
i n c i d e n t a l o r collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the

determination of the status of each heir and whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or exclusive
property of the deceased spouse. The general rule does not apply to the instant case considering that
the parties are all heirs of Joaquin and that no rights of third parties will be impaired by the resolution of the
ownership issue. Moreimportantly, the determination of whether the subject properties
are conjugal is but collateral to the probate courts jurisdiction to settle the estate of Joaquin.Section 2,
Rule 73 of the Rules of Court provides that when the marriage is dissolved by the deathof the husband or the
wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated, andthe debts thereof paid; in
the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse, and if both spouseshave died, the conjugal
partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either.T h u s , t h e RTC h a d
j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p r o p e r t i e s a r e c o n j u g a l a s i t h a d t o liquidate the
conjugal partnership to determine the estate of the decedent. In fact, should Joseph and Teresa
institute a settlement proceeding for the intestate estate of Lucia, the same should be consolidatedwith the
settlement proceedings of Joaquin, being Lucias spouse.