Facts: 1 Miguelita died intestate. She was survived by her huband (petitioner) and two minor children. 2. Emilio filed a verified petition for the settlement of Miguelita’s estate. 3. Miguelita’s mother filed an opposition to the petition for issuance of letters of administration. That the bulk of the estate is composed of paraphernal properties. She wished to be appointed. She also said that she has direct and material interest in the estate because she gave half of her inherited properties to the deceased on conditio ntaht they would undertake a business endeavor as partners. 4. The mother asked that one Emmanuel be appointed. 5. Court appointed Emilio and Emmanuel as joint-administrator. 6. No claims were filed. Thereafter, Emilio filed an inventory. Emmanuel failed to file one. 7. Court declared Emilio and his children as the only compulsory heirs of the deceased. 8. Emilio then petitioned the court for the payment of estate tax and the partition and distribution of the estate. 9. RTC denied the petition as to the partition and distribution. CA affirmed. Issue: May a trial court, acting as an intestate court, hear and pass upon questions of ownership involving properties claimed to be part of the decedent's estate?Issue: May a tial court, acting as an intestate court, hear and pass upon questions of ownership involving properties claimed to be part of the decedent's estate? Held: 1. General Rule: a. jurisdiction of the trial court either as an intestate or a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of will of deceased persons but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings i. The patent rationale for this rule is that such court exercises special and limited jurisdiction b. Awell-recognized deviation to the rule is the principle that an intestate or a probate court may hear and pass upon questions of ownership when its purpose is to- determine whether or not a property should be included in the inventory i, Pastor v. CA 1 Asa rule, the question of ownership is an extrataneous 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 properties, 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 2. Reliance to Pastor v.CA 2. The Court of Appeals reied heavily on the above principle in sustaining the juriscicton of the intestate court to conduct a hearing on respondent's claim. Such reliance 1s misplaced. e. Under the said principle, the key consideration is that the purpose of the intestate or probate court in hearing and passing upon questions of ownership is merely to determine whether or not a property should be included in the inventory. The facts of this casa show that such was rat the purpose of the intestate court i. First, the inventory was not disputed. 11 Respondent could have opposed pettioner's inventory and sought the exclusion of the ‘Specific properties which she believed or considered to be hers. But nstead ct doing so, she expressly adopted the inventory, taking excepton orly to the lov valuation placed on the real estate properties. ii, Second, Emmanuel (respondent's son) did net fle an inventory 1. He could have submitted an inventory, excluding therefrom those properties which respondent considered to be hers. The fact thet he did not endeavor to submit one shows that he acquiesced with petitioner's inventory. 2. Cleary, the RTC, acting as an intestate court, had overstepped its jurisdiction. Its proper course should have been to maintain @ hancs-off stance on the matter. Itis \wel- setled in this jurisdiction, sanctioned and reiteratod in a long line of dacisions, that when a question arises as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the esate of the deceased person. but claimed by some other person to be his property. no: by vite cf any ight of nheritance from the deceased but by te adverse tothat of the deceased and hs estate, such question cannot be determined in the course ofan intestate or probate proceecings. Ihe intestate or probate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the Court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a regional trial court. «2. Jurisprudence states that: i. probate court or one in charge of proceadings whether tostate or intestate cannot adjucicate or determine tile to properties claimed to be a part ofthe estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the said court could do as regards Said properties is to determine whether they should or shouid not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administator. If there is no cispute, well and good, but # there is, ten the partes, the administrator, and the opposing paities have to resort to an ordinary action for a fnal determination of the conficting claims of tile because tho probate court cannot do so. 3. Hence, respondent's recourse is to fle a separate acton with a court of general jurisdiction. The intestate court is not the appropriate forum forthe resolution of her adverse Claim of ovinership over properties ostensibly belonging to Miqueita’s estate,