[CASE TITLE] Emilio B. Pacioles, Jr. et. al. vs.

Miguela Chuatoco-Ching
[CASE #] G.R. No. 12790
[DATE] August 9, 2005
[PONENTE] Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
[NATURE] Petition for review on certiorari

Doctrine:

When a question arises as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the
estate of the deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his
property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title
adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such question cannot be
determined in the course of an intestate or probate proceedings.

Facts:

On 1992, Miguelita died intestate, leaving real properties with an estimated value of
P10.5M, stock investments worth P518,783.00, bank deposits amounting to P6.54M, and
interests in certain businesses. She was survived by her husband (Petitioner) and their 2
minor children.

Consequently, petitioner filed with the RTC a verified petition for the settlement of
Miguelitas estate. He prayed that (a) letters of administration be issued in his name, and
(b) that the net residue of the estate be divided among the compulsory heirs.

Miguelitas mother, Miguela Chuatoco-Ching (Respondent) filed an opposition,
specifically to petitioners prayer for the issuance of letters of administration on the
grounds that (a) petitioner is incompetent and unfit to exercise the duties of an
administrator; and (b) the bulk of Miguelitas estate is composed of paraphernal
properties. Respondent prayed that the letters of administration be issued to her instead.
Afterwards, she also filed a motion for her appointment as special administratrix.

Petitioners allegations: That the resp. had no direct and material interest in the estate,
she not being a compulsory heir, and that he, being the surviving spouse, has the
preferential right to be appointed as administrator under the law.

Respondents contentions: That she has direct and material interest in the estate
because she gave half of her inherited properties to Miguelita on condition that both of
them would undertake whatever business endeavor they decided to, in the capacity of
business partners. In her omnibus motion, she nominated her son Emmanuel to act as
special administrator.

The RTC appointed petitioner and Emmanuel as joint regular administrators of the
estate. Both were issued letters of administration after taking their oath and posting the
requisite bond.

No claims were filed against the estate within the period set. Thereafter, petitioner
submitted to the intestate court an inventory of Miguelitas estate. Emmanuel did not
submit an inventory.

The RTC declared petitioner and his 2 minor children as the only compulsory heirs of
Miguelita.

Petitioner filed with the intestate court an omnibus motion praying, among others, that an
Order be issued directing the: 1) payment of estate taxes; 2) partition and distribution of
the estate among the declared heirs; and 3) payment of attorneys fees. The intestate
court partially allowed the motion. It denied petitioners prayer for partition and distribution
of the estate, holding that it is premature.

The intestate court ratiocinated as follows:
The Court finds the prayer of petitioner in this regard to be premature. Thus, a
hearing is necessary to determine whether the properties listed in the amended
complaint filed by petitioner are entirely conjugal or the paraphernal properties of the
deceased, or a co-ownership between the oppositor and the petitioner in their
partnership venture.

Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the
intestate courts Order and Resolution. (CA dismissed)

Issue: Whether or not a trial court (acting as an intestate court) can hear and pass upon
questions of ownership involving properties claimed to be part of the decedents estate?

Held: No, the question of ownership of properties alleged to be part of the estate must be
submitted to the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction.
(Petition GRANTED. CA Reversed)

The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court either as an intestate or a probate
court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of
will of deceased persons but does not extend to the determination of questions of
ownership that arise during the proceedings. The patent rationale for this rule is that such
court exercises special and limited jurisdiction.

A well-recognized deviation to the rule is the principle that an intestate or a probate court
may hear and pass upon questions of ownership when its purpose is to determine
whether or not a property should be included in the inventory. In such situations the
adjudication is merely incidental and provisional.

The Court of Appeals relied heavily on the above principle in sustaining the jurisdiction of
the intestate court to conduct a hearing on respondents claim. Such reliance is
misplaced. Under the said principle, the key consideration is that the purpose of the
intestate or probate court in hearing and passing upon questions of ownership is merely
to determine whether or not a property should be included in the inventory.

The facts of this case show that such was not the purpose of the intestate court.
Respondents purpose here was not to obtain from the intestate court a ruling of what
properties should or should not be included in the inventory. She wanted to secure from
the intestate court a final determination of her claim of ownership over properties
comprising the bulk of Miguelitas estate.

Clearly, the RTC, acting as an intestate court, had overstepped its jurisdiction. Its
proper course should have been to maintain a hands-off stance on the matter. It is well-
settled in this jurisdiction, sanctioned and reiterated in a long line of decisions, that when
a question arises as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate of the
deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his property, not by virtue of
any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased
and his estate, such question cannot be determined in the course of an intestate or
probate proceedings. The intestate or probate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate
such contentions, which must be submitted to the court in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction as a regional trial court. Jurisprudence teaches us that:

A probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate
cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the
estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the said
court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether they should
or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be
administered by the administrator. If there is no dispute, well and good, but if
there is, then the parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties have to
resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of
title because the probate court cannot do so.

Hence, respondents recourse is to file a separate action with a court of general
jurisdiction. The intestate court is not the appropriate forum for the resolution of her
adverse claim of ownership over properties ostensibly belonging to Miguelita's estate.