Posted by: Riyani Marie M. Nartea on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
Spouses Juan Pan and Teresa Magtuba died intestate in 1943 and 1948 respectively. They possessed a homestead consisting of two parcels of land, located at Misamis Occidental. One parcel is Lot 1927which is 3 hectares and is registered in the name of Juan Pangilinan issued in 1927. The other parcel is identified as Lot No. 112 which is 18 hectares and issued on 1961 in the name of Heirs of Juan Pan represented by Concepcion Yamuta. According to Guadalupe Pizarras and her children a third, Lot No. 1920 with an area of 8 hectares which is surveryed in the name of Concepcion Pan forms part of the estate of the deceased Pangilinan Spouses. A Special Proceeding was instituted on 1963 for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouses. On September 25, 1965, the project of partition was presented by the administrator which is:
1. To Crispin Borromeo 3 hectares should be taken from Lot no 1112 as payment for his attorneys fees.
2. To the heirs of Francisco Pangilinan 5 hectares taken from Lot 1112.
3. To Prima Pangilinan 6 hectares taken from Lot 1112.
4. To the heirs of Concepcion Pangilinan 7 hectares consisteing of Lot No. 1927 and the remainder of Lot no. 1112.
It was also provided that the sum of P5,088.50 as the alleged debt of the estate to Concepcion Pan should be divided equally among the three set of heirs. The heirs of Francisco Pangilinan opposed that project of partition. They contended that the proposed partition contravened the lower court's order of December 6, 1963 which recognized the right of the heirs of Francisco Pan to a twelve-hectare portion of Lot No. 1112; that Prima Pangilinan, who sold her share to Francisco Pan should be excluded from the partition; that the total share of the heirs of Francisco Pangilinan in Lot No. 1112 is 12.6720 hectares, while that of the heirs of Concepcion Pangilinan is 6.3360 hectares, and that the claim of the heirs of Concepcion Pangilinan for 115,088.50 had not been properly allowed. Filomeno Coca contends that the lower court, as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the twelve-hectare portion of Lot No. 1112. On the other hand, the heirs of Francisco Pangilinan counter that the lower court did not decide the ownership of the twelve hectares when it ordered their exclusion from the project of partition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the 12 hectares should be decided in a separate action?
HELD: No.
Although generally, 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 (Pascual vs. Pascual 73 Phil. 561; Alvarez vs. Espiritu, L-18833, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 892; Cunanan vs. Amparo, supra; 3 Morans Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 4731).
We hold that the instant case may be treated as an exception to the general rule that questions of title should be ventilated in a separate action.
Here, the probate court had already received evidence on the ownership of the twelve-hectare portion during the hearing of the motion for its exclusion from title inventory The only interested parties are the heirs who have all appeared in the intestate proceeding.
FACTS:
Spouses Juan Pan and Teresa Magtuba died intestate in 1943 and 1948 respectively. They possessed a homestead consisting of two parcels of land, located at Misamis Occidental. One parcel is Lot 1927which is 3 hectares and is registered in the name of Juan Pangilinan issued in 1927. The other parcel is identified as Lot No. 112 which is 18 hectares and issued on 1961 in the name of Heirs of Juan Pan represented by Concepcion Yamuta. According to Guadalupe Pizarras and her children a third, Lot No. 1920 with an area of 8 hectares which is surveryed in the name of Concepcion Pan forms part of the estate of the deceased Pangilinan Spouses. A Special Proceeding was instituted on 1963 for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouses. On September 25, 1965, the project of partition was presented by the administrator which is:
1. To Crispin Borromeo 3 hectares should be taken from Lot no 1112 as payment for his attorneys fees.
2. To the heirs of Francisco Pangilinan 5 hectares taken from Lot 1112.
3. To Prima Pangilinan 6 hectares taken from Lot 1112.
4. To the heirs of Concepcion Pangilinan 7 hectares consisteing of Lot No. 1927 and the remainder of Lot no. 1112.
It was also provided that the sum of P5,088.50 as the alleged debt of the estate to Concepcion Pan should be divided equally among the three set of heirs. The heirs of Francisco Pangilinan opposed that project of partition. They contended that the proposed partition contravened the lower court's order of December 6, 1963 which recognized the right of the heirs of Francisco Pan to a twelve-hectare portion of Lot No. 1112; that Prima Pangilinan, who sold her share to Francisco Pan should be excluded from the partition; that the total share of the heirs of Francisco Pangilinan in Lot No. 1112 is 12.6720 hectares, while that of the heirs of Concepcion Pangilinan is 6.3360 hectares, and that the claim of the heirs of Concepcion Pangilinan for 115,088.50 had not been properly allowed. Filomeno Coca contends that the lower court, as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the twelve-hectare portion of Lot No. 1112. On the other hand, the heirs of Francisco Pangilinan counter that the lower court did not decide the ownership of the twelve hectares when it ordered their exclusion from the project of partition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the 12 hectares should be decided in a separate action?
HELD: No.
Although generally, 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 (Pascual vs. Pascual 73 Phil. 561; Alvarez vs. Espiritu, L-18833, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 892; Cunanan vs. Amparo, supra; 3 Morans Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p. 4731).
We hold that the instant case may be treated as an exception to the general rule that questions of title should be ventilated in a separate action.
Here, the probate court had already received evidence on the ownership of the twelve-hectare portion during the hearing of the motion for its exclusion from title inventory The only interested parties are the heirs who have all appeared in the intestate proceeding.
