G.R. No. 188921 – 670 SCRA 218 – 686 Phil. 203 – Remedial Law – Special Proceedings – Settlement of Estate – Jurisdiction of Probate Courts; Ownership issue between heirs may be passed upon by probate court – Duties of an Administrator – When may heirs file an action for recovery
Aurora Romero was appointed by the probate court (PC) as the administrator of her deceased husband’s estate. She has three children, Leo Romero, David Romero, and Vittorio Romero.
During the pendency of the probate case, Leo and David discovered that Aurora sold some portions of the estate to Vittorio. Leo and David then filed, in a different court (RTC), a Complaint for Annulment of Sale and Reconveyance on the ground that the sales made by Aurora were attended by fraud.
Aurora, in her defense, averred that what she sold were paraphernal properties.
The RTC dismissed the case on the ground that it has no jurisdiction because of the pending probate case.
Leo now files a certiorari case against the judge on the grounds that:
- The RTC has jurisdiction because the PC can only provisionally rule on ownership issues;
- They may sue separately because the administrator committed acts against the estate or is negligent;
- The validity of the sales made by Aurora is subject to a separate proceeding
ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions of Leo are correct.
HELD: No.
1. 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.
So what is the exception?
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.
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.
While it is true that a probate court’s determination of ownership over properties which may form part of the estate is not final or ultimate in nature, this rule is applicable only as between the representatives of the estate and strangers thereto.
2 and 3. The record of the case does not support the allegation of Leo. Without such proof, presumption must favor Aurora and that she is doing her obligations as mandated by the probate court. If Leo has questions about the alleged sales made by Aurora, then that issue can only be properly threshed out by the probate court and not a separate civil action. Rule 87 provides that an heir may not sue until his or her share is assigned.
