[G.R. No. 117417.
September 21, 2000]
MILAGROS A. CORTES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MENANDRO A. RESELVA, respondents.
General Rule:
The long standing rule is that probate courts, or those in charge of proceedings whether testate or
intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of the estate and which
are claimed to belong to outside parties. Stated otherwise, "claims for title to, or right of possession of,
personal or real property, made by the heirs themselves, by title adverse to that of the deceased, or
made by third persons, cannot be entertained by the (probate) court.
Exception:
When the parties are all heirs of the decedent, it is optional upon them to submit to the probate court
the question of title to property.
FACTS:
Herein petitioner Menandro A. Reselva, private respondent (petitioner in this petition) Milagros R.
Cortes, and Florante Reselva are brothers and sister and children - heirs of the late spouses Teodoro T.
Reselva and Lucrecia Aguirre Reselva. During their lifetime, they acquired a property particularly a house
and lot. Lucrecia Aguirre Reselva died ahead of Teodoro T. Reselva. The latter executed a holographic
will which was probated in this case on July 31, 1991, with Milagros R. Cortes, as the appointed
Executrix.
After having been appointed and qualified as Executrix, she filed a motion before respondent probate
court praying that Menandro A. Reselva, the occupant of the property, be ordered to vacate the
property at No. 173 Ilaw St., Balut, Tondo, Manila and turn over to said Executrix the possession thereof.
This is the motion which the respondent court granted in the assailed order of October 18, 1993."[4]
In the Appellate Court, the Regional Trial Court's order was set aside for having been issued beyond the
latter's limited jurisdiction as a probate court.
The long standing rule is that probate courts, or those in charge of proceedings whether testate or
intestate, cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of the estate and which
are claimed to belong to outside parties. Stated otherwise, "claims for title to, or right of possession of,
personal or real property, made by the heirs themselves, by title adverse to that of the deceased, or
made by third persons, cannot be entertained by the (probate) court."
In the present case, however, private respondent Menandro A. Reselva, who refused to vacate the
house and lot being eyed as part of the estate of the late Teodoro T. Reselva, cannot be considered an
"outside party" for he is one of the three compulsory heirs of the former. As such, he is very much
involved in the settlement of Teodoro's estate. By way of exception to the above-mentioned rule, "when
the parties are all heirs of the decedent, it is optional upon them to submit to the probate court the
question of title to property." Here, the probate court is competent to decide the question of
ownership. More so, when the opposing parties belong to the poor stratum of society and a separate
action would be most expensive and inexpedient.
In addition, Menandro's claim is not at all adverse to, or in conflict with that of, the decedent since the
former's theory merely advances co-ownership with the latter. In the same way, when the controversy
is whether the property in issue belongs to the conjugal partnership or exclusively to the decedent, the
same is properly within the jurisdiction of the probate court, which necessarily has to liquidate the
conjugal partnership in order to determine the estate of the decedent which is to be distributed among
the heirs.
More importantly, the case at bar falls squarely under Rule 73, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court,
thus:
"RULE 73
"SEC. 2. Where estate upon dissolution of marriage. - When the marriage is dissolved by the death of
the husband or wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and
the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse. If both spouses
have died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either."
Hence, in the 1991 case of Vita vs. Montanano we ruled:
"(I)t is not necessary to file a separate proceeding in court for the proper disposition of the estate of
Isidra Montanano. Under Rule 73, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, if both spouses have died, the
conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either. In the present
case, therefore, the conjugal partnership of Isidra Montanano and Edilberto Vita should be liquidated in
the testate proceedings of the latter."
Consequently, this case before us should be returned to the probate court for the liquidation of the
conjugal partnership of Teodoro and Lucrecia Reselva prior to the settlement of the estate of Teodoro.
Disposition:
WHEREFORE, without reinstating the assailed order of the trial court, the questioned decision of the
Court of Appeals dated September 9, 1994 in CA-G.R. SP No. 33826 is hereby SET ASIDE and the case
REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs.
