Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
In 1997, Spouses Ernesto and Gilda Jardeleza filed an action for reconveyance against Spouses Melecio and Elizabeth Jardeleza. The case was raffled in RTC 33 (Iloilo City). While the case was pending in 2004, Ernesto died. Thereafter, a Settlement of Estate case was filed before RTC 38 to settle Ernesto’s estate. Teodoro Jardeleza was appointed as the administrator.
Teodoro, as administrator, then filed a motion to dismiss the civil case pending in RTC 33 on the ground that Melecio is an heir of Ernesto hence the properties that Ernesto was seeking to recover from Melecio should be deemed as advances in the inheritance of Melecio. RTC 33 granted the motion and it dismissed the civil case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal is proper.
HELD: No. The jurisdiction of the RTC as a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of a will of a deceased person, and does not extend to the determination of a question of ownership that arises during the proceedings. This is true whether or not the property is alleged to belong to the estate, unless the claimants to the property are all heirs of the deceased and they agree to submit the question for determination by the probate or administration court and the interests of third parties are not prejudiced; or unless the purpose is to determine whether or not certain properties should be included in the inventory, in which case the probate or administration court may decide prima facie the ownership of the property, but such determination is not final and is without prejudice to the right of interested parties to ventilate the question of ownership in a proper action. Otherwise put, the determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title by a court of competent jurisdiction.
In this case, the civil case in RTC 33 survives the death of Ernesto. RTC 33 shirked in its responsibility to decide on the ownership issue posed before it. It was improper for RTC 33 to dismiss the case and just let RTC 38 decided on the ownership issue in the estate proceedings
