FIRST DIVISION
|
CORAZON
M. GREGORIO, as administratrix of the estate litigated in the case below,
RAMIRO T. MADARANG, and the heirs of CASIMIRO R. MADARANG, JR., namely: Estrelita L. Madarang, Consuelo P.
Madarang, Casimiro Madarang IV, and Jane Margaret Madarang-Crabtree, Petitioners, - versus - ATTY.
JOSE R. MADARANG and VICENTE R. MADARANG, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 185226 Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: February 11, 2010 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.
Casimiro
V. Madarang, Sr. (Casimiro, Sr. or the decedent) died intestate on P200,000.00.[1] He
was survived by his wife Dolores and their five children, namely Casimiro, Jr.,
Jose, Ramiro, Vicente and Corazon.
In
the intestate proceedings filed by the couple’s son Jose which was lodged
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Dolores
submitted an Inventory Report listing the properties of the decedent’s estate. Jose filed his Comment on the Report, alleging
that it omitted six lots including
A
hearing was thus conducted to determine whether the six lots formed part of the
estate of the decedent. By Order of
x x x The said
properties appear to have been acquired by the spouses after [their
marriage on]
instructed Dolores to revise her
Inventory Report to include the six lots.
Dolores
and her children, except Jose who suggested that the former be referred to as
“oppositors,”[5] questioned
the RTC order of inclusion of the six lots via motion for reconsideration
during the pendency of which motion the court appointed herein petitioner
Corazon as co-administratrix of her mother Dolores.
As Dolores and her co-oppositors alleged
that the six lots had been transferred during the lifetime of the decedent,
they were ordered to submit their affidavits, in lieu of oral testimony, to
support the allegation. Only herein
respondent Vicente complied. In his Affidavit, Vicente declared that one of the
six lots,
It
appears that petitioners later manifested that they no longer oppose the provisional inclusion of the six lots, except
The
RTC, by Order of
Of
the six lots directed included in the inventory,
Jose
moved to reconsider the RTC January 20, 2003 Order, arguing that since the
title to Lot 829-B-4-B remained registered in the name of his parents, it
should not be excluded from the Inventory; and that the Deed of Donation in
Vicente’s favor was not notarized nor registered with the Register of Deeds. Jose’s motion for reconsideration having been
denied by Order of
In his Brief filed before the Court
of Appeals, Jose claimed that the RTC erred in excluding
Jose
later filed before the appellate court a “Motion to Withdraw Petition” which his
co-heirs-oppositors-herein petitioners opposed on the ground that, inter alia, a grant thereof would “end”
the administration proceedings. The
appellate court, by Resolution of
Petitioners’
motion for reconsideration of the appellate court’s grant of Jose’s Motion to
Withdraw Petition was, by Resolution of
x x x x
In the instant case, the Probate Court found that the parties of the case interposed no objection to the non-inclusion of Lot No. 829-B-4-B in the inventory of the estate of Casimiro V. Madarang, in effect, they have consented thereto. x x x
x x x x
Moreover, [herein petitioners] in their appeal brief, ha[ve] extensively argued that . . . Vicente Madarang [to whom the questioned lot was donated] and his family have been in continuous, actual and physical possession of the donated lot for over twenty (20) years, even before the execution of the so called donation inter vivos in 1992. . . . Vicente Madarang has his residential house thereon and that his ownership over the donated lot has been fully recognized by the entire Madarang Clan, including all his brothers and sisters, except the much belated objection by the appellant (Jose), allegedly resorted to as an act of harassment. [10] (emphasis and underscoring supplied),
thus affirming the RTC order of
exclusion of the questioned lot.
Hence, the present petition for
review filed by the oppositors-herein petitioners. Casimiro,
Jr. having died during the pendency of the case, he was substituted by his wife
petitioner Estrelita and co-petitioners children Consuelo, Casimiro IV, and
Jane Margaret.
Petitioners
contend that since the only issue for consideration by the appellate court was
the merit of Jose’s “Motion to Withdraw Petition,” it exceeded its jurisdiction
when it passed upon the merits of Jose’s appeal from the RTC order excluding
Petitioners’
contention does not lie.
In their Motion for Reconsideration
of the appellate court’s grant of Jose’s “Motion to Withdraw Petition,” petitioners,
oddly denying the existence of a “petition,” raised the issue of the propriety
of the RTC Order excluding
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
Oppositors-Appellees [petitioners] respectfully PRAY for this Honorable Court
to RECONSIDER its questioned Resolution and rendering [sic], forthwith, a decision resolving the merits of the Partial
Appeal of petitioner-appellant Jose Madarang.[11] (capitalization
in the original; emphasis supplied)
The appellate court did not thus err
in passing on the said issue.
More
specifically, petitioners question the appellate court’s finding that as the
parties “interposed no objection to the non-inclusion of Lot No. 829-B-4-B in
the inventory of the estate of Casimiro V. Madarang, in effect, they have
consented thereto.”[12]
A review of the voluminous records of
the case shows that, indeed, there was no accord among the parties respecting the
exclusion of
While
a probate court, being of special and limited jurisdiction, cannot act on questions
of title and ownership, it can, for purposes of inclusion or exclusion in the
inventory of properties of a decedent, make a provisional determination of ownership, without prejudice to a
final determination through a separate action in a court of general
jurisdiction.
The
facts obtaining in the present case, however, do not call for the probate court
to make a provisional determination
of ownership of
As
earlier reflected, Vicente’s claim of ownership over
Article
1061 of the Civil Code expressly provides:
Article 1061. Every compulsory
heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass
of the estate any property or right which he may have received from the
decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or
any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the
determination of the legitime of each heir and in the account of partition. (underscoring supplied)
in relation to which, Section 2, Rule
90 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 2. Questions as to advancement to be determined. – Questions as to advancement made, or alleged to have been made, by the deceased to any heir may be heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on the heir. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
By
express provision of law then,
WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. The
assailed
Let the records of the case be
remanded to the court of origin, the
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, Vol. 1, “Petition for Letters of Administration,” p. 2.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Manifestation and Motion, id. at 273, 276-277.
[6]
[7]
[8] Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, records, Vol. 2, pp. 1242-1243.
[9]
[10]
[11] CA rollo, p. 121.
[12] Rollo, pp. 51-52.
[13] Reyes v. Hon. Regional Trial
Court of Makati, Branch 142, G.R. No. 165744,