Ismael Reyes vs Cesar Reyes

The spouses Ismael and Felisa Reyes owned two parcels of land (Lot A and Lot B) collectively referred to
as the Arayat properties located in Arayat, Cubao, Quezon City.

In 1973, Ismael died intestate. He was survived by his wife Felisa, his children Oscar Reyes, Cesar Reyes,
and five other children. Before his death however, Lot A was forfeited in favor of the government due to
his failure to pay the tax.

In 1976, Oscar was able to redeem the said property.

In 1982, Lot B was also forfeited again in favor of the government due to Felisas failure to pay taxes. In
1986, Oscar was again able to redeem Lot B.

In 1989, Cesar (brother of Oscar) filed a petition to be the administrator of the estate of Ismael which
consists of the 50% of the Arayat properties. Oscar filed his opposition thereto on the ground that the
estate Ismael was no longer the owner of the said properties and that in fact Oscar became the owner
because he was the one who redeemed the Arayat properties; that the other heirs abandoned their
shares; that Cesars petition was filed belatedly because he only filed it 16 years after the death of their
father.

The probate court however allowed the petition of Cesar and approved the inclusion of the Arayat
properties into the estate of Ismael.

ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the probate court is proper.

HELD: Yes. The jurisdiction of the probate court merely relates to matters having to do with the
settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of deceased persons, and the appointment and
removal of administrators, executors, guardians and trustees. The question of ownership is as a rule, an
extraneous 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
proceeding, 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.

The foregoing rule however provides for an exception, that is: if the claimant and all other parties having
legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the question to the
Probate Court for adjudgment, or the interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced. In this case,
not all parties, not all heirs, gave their consent to the probate court.