Case Digest

The Case - IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF DECEASED ISMAEL REYES, THE
HEIRS OF OSCAR R. REYES, petitioners,vs. CESAR R. REYES, respondent. G.R. No. 139587
November 22, 2000

Facts. - The spouses Ismael and Felisa Reyes owned two parcels of land (Lot A
and Lot B) collectively referred to as the Arayat properties located in Arayat, Cubao,
Quezon City.

In 1973, Ismael died intestate. He was survived by his wife Felisa, his children Oscar
Reyes, Cesar Reyes, and five other children. Before his death however, Lot A was
forfeited in favor of the government due to his failure to pay the tax.

In 1976, Oscar was able to redeem the said property.

In 1982, Lot B was also forfeited again in favor of the government due to Felisa’s failure
to pay taxes. In 1986, Oscar was again able to redeem Lot B.

In 1989, Cesar (brother of Oscar) filed a petition to be the administrator of the estate of
Ismael which consists of the 50% of the Arayat properties. Oscar filed his opposition
thereto on the ground that the estate Ismael was no longer the owner of the said
properties and that in fact Oscar became the owner because he was the one who
redeemed the Arayat properties; that the other heirs abandoned their shares; that
Cesar’s petition was filed belatedly because he only filed it 16 years after the death of
their father.

The probate court however allowed the petition of Cesar and approved the inclusion
of the Arayat properties into the estate of Ismael.

Issue. - Whether or not the decision of the probate court is proper.

Held. - Yes. The jurisdiction of the probate court merely relates to matters having
to do with the settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of deceased persons,
and the appointment and removal of administrators, executors, guardians and
trustees. The question of ownership is as a rule, an extraneous matter which the Probate
Court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a
certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate
proceeding, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination
is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to
resolve title.

The foregoing rule however provides for an exception, that is: if 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, or the interests of third
persons are not thereby prejudiced. In this case, not all parties, not all heirs, gave their
consent to the probate court.

Doctrines learned. – (1) The jurisdiction of the probate court merely relates to
matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of
deceased persons, and the appointment and removal of administrators, executors,
guardians and trustees.

(2) the Regional Trial Court acting as a probate court exercises but limited
jurisdiction, thus it has no power to take cognizance of and determine the issue of title
to property claimed by a third person adversely to the decedent, unless the claimant
and all other parties having legal interest in the property consent.