RODRIGUEZ VS RODRIGUEZ

FACTS:

In 2008, Reynaldo Rodriguez died intestate. His heirs, Rolando Rodriguez et al. extra judicially settled his
properties. They did not include in the settlement a BPI bank account which their father owned together
with Anita Tan.

In 2009, Anita Tan received a letter from BPI advising her that her joint account with Rolando Rodriguez
will go dormant due to inactivity. Anita coordinated with the Rolando et al but they refused to give her
the documents she was requesting. Instead, Rolando et al. informed the bank that the account is solely
their father’s.

In 2011, Anita petitioned for the settlement of the bank account but with the particular prayer that the
bank account should be excluded from the estate of Reynaldo. Anita alleged that even though the bank
account is joint, the funds therein were solely from her other bank account. Rolando et al. moved for the
dismissal of the petition but at the same time claimed that the fund is theirs by way of inheritance. Their
motion to dismiss was denied. During trial, Anita was able to show proof that the money there was really
solely from her. Hence, the intestate court ruled in her favor. Rolando et al. appealed and the Court of
Appeals ruled in favor of Rolando et al.

ISSUE: Whether or not the bank account is part of Reynaldo’s estate.

HELD: No. Anita was able to prove that the funds of the bank account was solely hers. The intestate
court, based on the evidence presented, was well within its powers to exclude the bank account from
the estate of Reynaldo. It is also noteworthy that Rolando et al. had the opportunity to include the bank
account as part of the estate of Reynaldo when they were extra-judicially settling his estate but they
chose not to. In the same vein, they could have called on the power of the court to act as an intestate
court to settle the estate. Such failure amounts to a waiver.

Equally important is the rule that the determination of whether or not a particular matter should be
resolved by the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited
jurisdiction as a special court (probate, land registration, etc.) is in reality not a jurisdictional question. It
is in essence a procedural question involving a mode of practice “which may be waived.”

Such waiver introduces the exception to the general rule that while the probate court exercises limited
jurisdiction, it may settle questions relating to ownership when 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.

Such waiver was evident from the fact that the respondents sought for affirmative relief before the court
a quo as they claimed ownership over the funds in the joint account of their father to the exclusion of his
co-depositor.