ROMERO VS.

CA
FACTS: Petitioners allege that upon their fathers death, their mother, respondent
Aurora Romero, was appointed as legal guardian who held several real and
personal properties in trust for her children. [3] Since that year until the present, she
continues to be the administrator of the properties. Sometime in 2006, petitioners
Leo and Amando discovered that several Deeds of Sale were registered over
parcels of land that are purportedly conjugal properties of their parents. Petitioners
further claim that their brother Vittorio through fraud, misrepresentation and duress
succeeded in registering such properties in his name through Deeds of Sale
executed by their mother, Aurora.
On 18 December 2006, petitioners filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale,
Nullification of Title, and Conveyance of Title (Amended) [6] against private
respondents Aurora C. Romero and Vittorio C. Romero.
Respondents filed their Answer, arguing that the properties in question were
acquired long after the death of their father, Judge Dante Romero; hence, the
properties cannot be considered conjugal.

RTC rendered its Resolution dismissing petitioners complaint

stating that the case remains pending in that no distribution of the
assets of the estate of the late Dante Y. Romero, nor a partition, has
been effected among his compulsory heirs. Thus, the contending
claims of plaintiffs and defendants in this case could not be
adjudicated nor passed upon by this Court without first getting a
definitive pronouncement from the intestate court as to the share
of each of the heirs of the late Dante Y. Romero in his estate.

Even the claim of defendant Aurora C. Romero that some of the

properties being claimed by plaintiffs in this case are her own, the
same being paraphernal, is an issue which must be taken up and
established in the intestate proceedings.

The court ruled that plaintiffs must first cause the termination of Special
Proceedings No. 5185 to its logical conclusion before this case could be
entertained by the Court. , petitioners filed for certiorari under Rule 65 with the
CA.
On 14 April 2009, the CA rendered the assailed judgment dismissing the Petition,
ruling that the properties involved in this case are part of the estate left to the heirs
of Judge Romero, the partition of which is already subject of an intestate
proceeding filed on 6 January 1976 in the then Court of First Instance.
Petitioners assert that the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a probate or intestate
court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate of
deceased persons or the appointment of executors, but does not extend to the
determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings.[10]
They cite Ongsingco v. Tan,[11] Baybayan v. Aquino[12] which states that when
questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be part of the estate of a
deceased person, he intestate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate these
questions.
Petitioners conclude that the issue of ownership of the properties must be
determined in a separate civil action to resolve title.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issue of ownership of the properties must be
determined in a separate civil action to resolve title.
RULING:

NO. The probate court has jurisdiction to determine the issues in the present
case. The rulings in Ongsingco and Baybayan are wholly inapplicable, as they both
arose out of facts different from those in the case at bar.
In Coca v. Borromeo,[14] this Court allowed the probate court to
provisionally pass upon the issue of title, precisely because the only
interested parties are all heirs to the estate, subject of the proceeding.
SC discussed that As a general rule, the question as to title to property
should not be passed upon in the testate or intestate proceeding. That
question should be ventilated in a separate action. That general rule
has qualifications or exceptions justified by expediency and
convenience.

Thus, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an

intestate or testate proceeding the question of inclusion in, or
exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice
to its final determination in a separate action.
 Although generally, a probate court may not decide a question
of title or ownership, yet if the interested parties are all heirs, 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 is competent to
decide the question of ownership.
Lebin vs Mirasol

In Special Proceedings No. 1307 involving the settlement of the estate of the late
L.J. Hodges, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, in Iloilo City, issued an
order dated May 3, 1995 (ruling that a property of the estate sold to the petitioners
be divided in two equal portions between the petitioners and the respondent). The
petitioners filed a notice of appeal and, later on, a record on appeal, but the
respondents moved to dismiss their appeal on June 15, 2000 on the ground of
tardiness of the record on appeal. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss on
February 1, 2002.

Hence, the petitioners appealed via petition for review on certiorari filed on June
23, 2004, to seek the review and reversal of the orders of the RTC dated February
1, 2002.

Issues:

Whether or not the RTC committed reversible error in adjudging that Lot 18
be sold to both the petitioners and Mirasol in equal portions.
Ruling

NO. RTC committed no reversible error in allocating Lot 18 in equal portions

to both petitioners and respondent

the Court declares that the RTC did not err in allocating the parcel of land equally
to the parties if only to serve and enforce a standing policy in the settlement of the
large estate of the late L.J. Hodges to prefer actual occupants in the disposition of
estate assets. The policy was entirely within the power of the RTC to adopt and
enforce as the probate court. Under Rule 89 of the Rules of Court, the RTC may
authorize the sale, mortgage, or encumbrance of assets of the estate.

RULE 89 Section 4.

When court may authorize sale of estate as beneficial to interested persons;

Disposal of proceeds. - When it appears that the sale of the whole or a part of
the real or personal estate will be beneficial to the heirs, devisees, legatees, and
other interested persons, the court may, upon application of the executor or
administrator and on written notice to the heirs, devisees and legatees who are
interested in the estate to be sold, authorize the executor or administrator to sell the
whole or a part of said estate, although not necessary to pay debts, legacies, or
expenses of administration; but such authority shall not be granted if inconsistent
with the provisions of a will. In case of such sale, the proceeds shall be assigned to
the persons entitled to the estate in the proper proportions.
Aranas vs. Mercado

Emigdio S. Mercado (Emigdio) died intestate on January 12, 1991, survived by his
second wife, Teresita V. Mercado (Teresita), and their five children and his two
children by his first marriage, one of which is herein petitioner Thelma aranas.

Thelma filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City a petition for the
appointment of Teresita as the administrator of Emigdio's estate. The RTC granted
the petition considering that there was no opposition.

As the administrator, Teresita submitted an inventory of the estate of Emigdio for

the consideration and approval by the RTC. She indicated in the inventory that at
the time of his death, Emigdio had "left no real properties but only personal
properties"

Claiming that Emigdio had owned other properties that were excluded from the
inventory, Thelma moved that the RTC direct Teresita to amend the inventory.

The RTC issued on March 14, 2001 an order finding and holding that the
inventory submitted by Teresita had excluded properties that should be
included.

Teresita, joined by other heirs of Emigdio, timely sought the reconsideration

of the order of March 14, 2001 on the ground that one of the real properties
affected, located in Cebu, had already been sold to Mervir Realty,

ISSUE: Whether or not he RTC committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in directing the inclusion of certain
properties in the inventory notwithstanding that such properties had been either
transferred by sale or exchanged for corporate shares in Mervir Realty by the
decedent during his lifetime?

RULING:
No. The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership of
properties for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the inventory to be
submitted by the administrator, but its determination shall only be provisional
unless the interested parties are all heirs of the decedent, 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. Its jurisdiction
extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the
estate, such as the determination of the status of each heir and whether property
included in the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased
spouse.
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a probate
court 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 proceedings.
However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as justified by expediency and
convenience.
The determination of which properties should be excluded from or included
in the inventory of estate properties was well within the authority and discretion of
the RTC as an intestate court.
Coca vs. Borromeo

Spouses Juan Pangilinan and Teresa Magtuba died intestate in 1943 and 1948,
respectively. Possessed a homestead, consisting of two parcels of land in Misamis
Occidental and is survived by heirs Prima PangilinanMaria, Eusebio, Apolinar
YAMUTA (Children of Concepcion Pangilinan Yamuta) and Francis, Algerian,
Benjamin, Perla and Francisco Jr., Pangilinan (Children of Francisco Pangilinan)
and Widow, Guadalupe. A Special Proceeding before Court of First Instance of
Misamis Occidental was thereafter instituted where the administrator presented a
project of partition. The heirs of Francisco Pangilinan opposed such project of
partition.

The CFI nevertheless, ordered partition of the properties:

Giving attys fees to Crispin Borromeo

Without taking into consideration ownership of a 12-hectare land claimed

by the heirs of Francisco Pangilinan, of a 6 hectare land claimed by Crispin
Borromeo and:
a) Debt to Concepcions estate
b) If Prima sold her share to Francisco
Note: WON Prima was excluded as an heir

CFI ordered that a separate ordinary action is needed to determine ownership of the
land in dispute.
Later on, they approved the project of partition. CA sustained CFI.

ISSUES: WON separate proceedings should be filed to determine ownership?

HELD: No, the case is an exception. The probate court may provisionally pass
upon the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of
property without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action.
General rule is that a Probate Court may not pass upon ownership
Except: If the interested parties are all heirs, (case at bar)
- or if 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 3rd parties are not impaired, then the probate court is
competent to decide the question of ownership.

The appellees belong to the poor stratum of society. They should not be forced to
incur additional expenses by bringing a separate action to determine ownership of
the 12 hectare portion.
Ancheta vs. Guersey-dalaygon
Facts: Spouses Audrey ONeil and Richard Guersey were American citizens who
lived in the Philippines for about 30 years. They had an adopted daughter named
Kyle.
In 1979, Audrey died, and in a will left her entire estate to Richard. This will was
admitted to probate in USA. The foreign court named Petitioner Atty. Ancheta as
ancillary administrator of Audreys estate. In 1981, Richard married Respondent
Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon.
The following year, the same will of Audrey was admitted to probate here in the
Philippines by the CFI of Rizal. In 1984, Richard died. In his will, he left likewise
his entire estate to Respondent Guersey-Dalaygon.
The will was first admitted to probate by another court USA.
Atty. Ancheta filed a project of partition in which Richard was to be given a
undivided interest in a Makati property, and the remaining to Kyle, the adopted
daughter. This was contrary to Audreys will in which she bequeathed not only
of her estate to Richard, but the whole of it.
It meant that Respondent Guersey-Dalaygon, Richards second wife, was going to
receive less, despite having been given by Richard the whole of his estate in his
will.
The trial court still awarded only Richards interest to the Respondent.
Respondent Guersey-Dalaygon then filed an appeal with the CA, and additionally
contended that Petitioner Ancheta breached his fiduciary duty as ancillary
administrator in transgressing the duly-probated will of Audrey. This to her was
tantamount to fraud. The CA took this contention well and nullified the Orders of
the trial court giving only to the respondent.
ISSUES:
1. The Order of the trial court had already been final and executory. Can this till be
set aside?
2.Was the distribution of Audreys estate in a - manner (in contradiction of
Audreys will) in accordance with law?
RULING:
1. YES. Once a decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased its binding
effect is like any other judgment in rem. As an exception, such judgment
may be set aside on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or fraud. And his failure
to proficiently manage the distribution of the estate according to the terms of
the will amounted to extrinsic fraud.

2. NO. Rule 77 states that when a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant
letters -testamentary, and such letters shall extend to all the estate of the
testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and
expenses of administration, shall be disposed of according to such will.
Again, Atty Ancheta failed to manage the distribution of the estate
according to the terms of the will.