You are on page 1of 2

Gregorio v.

Madarang
G.R. No. 185226; 11 February 2010; Carpio-Morales, J.
Digest by Ruth Guinto
Casimiro Madarang died intestate. He was survived by his wife Dolores and their
five children, Casimiro Jr., Jose, Ramiro, Vicente and Corazon.
In the intestate proceedings filed by the couples son Jose, Dolores was appointed as
administratrix.
Dolores submitted an Inventory Report listing the properties of the decedents
estate. Jose filed his comment, alleging that it omitted six lots.
A hearing was conducted to determine whether the sic lots formed part of the
estate of the decedent. RTC found that the properties appear to have been acquired
by the spouses after their marriage and during their marriage or overture and thus
instructed Dolores to revise her Inventory Report to include the six lots.
Dolores and her children, except Jose, questioned the RTC order of inclusion of the
six lots. They alleged that the six lots had been transferred during the lifetime of the
decedent. They were ordered to submit their affidavits in lieu of oral testimony. Only
Vicente complied; he declared in his affidavit that one lot was conveyed to
him by a Deed of Donation executed by his parents. Dolores and her children
later manifested that they no longer oppose the provisional inclusion of the six lots,
except Vicentes lot.
RTC modified its Order; directing the inclusion of the five lots in the inventory, and
that Vicentes lot be excluded.
Jose moved to reconsider the RTC Order, arguing that the title of the lot remained
registered in the name of his parents and should not be excluded from the
inventory, and that the Deed of Donation was not notarized nor registered in the
Register of Deeds. This motion was denied.
Jose raised his appeal to the CA. But he later filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition
which he other heirs opposed on the ground that the grant thereof would end the
administration proceedings.
The CA granted the withdrawal. Heirs motion for reconsideration was denied on the
grounds:
1. Parties in the case did not object to the non-inclusion, in effect, consented
thereto.
2. Vicente and his family have been in continuous, actual and physical
possession of the donated lot.
Hence this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether or not Vicentes lot must be included in the inventory. [YES]

RULING
Article 1061 of the Civil Code provides:
Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs,
must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he
may have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter,
by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may
be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir and in
the account of partition
In relation to which, Sec 2, Rule 90 of the ROC provides:
Questions as to advancement made, or alleged to have been made, by
the deceased to any heir may be heard and determined by the court
having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the final order of the
court shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on the
heir.
By express provision of law then, Vicentes lot, which was alleged to have been
donated by the decedent and his wife to Vicente, should not be excluded from the
inventory of the properties of the decedent.
While the probate court cannot act on questions of title and ownership, it can, for
purposes of inclusion and exclusion in the inventory of properties of a decedent,
make provisional determination of ownership, without prejudice to a final
determination through a separate action in a court of general jurisdiction.