Sebial v.

Sebial Digest

G.R. No. L-23419

Facts of the Case:
Gelacio Sebial died in 1943, he had 3 children with this 1st wife Reoncia (Roberta's mother) and 6
other children with his 2nd wife Dolores, (Benjamina's mother). In 1960, BEjamina filed for the
settlement of her father's estate and her appointment as administrator. Thisd petition was oppsed by
Roberta on the ground that said estate had already been apportioned and that she should be the one
appointed as administrator and not Benjamina. The Court appointed Benjamina and found that alleged
partition was invalid and ineffective. So the letters of administration were issued and a notice to the
creditors was issue don the same date. The oppositors motion for reconsideration was denied. For the
possibility of an amicale settlement, the court ordered both sides to give a complete list of the
porperties of te decedent with segregation for each marriage.
On Nov. 1961, the lower court approved the administrator's inventory (second one) or six months from
the appointment. Roberta them moved for the motion reocnsideration alleging as ground that the court
has no jusridiction to approve the inventory as it was files beyiind the 3-month period. The Court of
Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Did the court lose jurisdiction to approve the inventory which was made 6 months after
the appointment?
Ruling. NO. Under section 1 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court, the prescribed three-month period is
not mandatory. Once a petition for the issuance of letters of administration is filed with the proper court
and the publication of the notice of hearing is complied with, said court acquires jurisdiction over the
estate and retains such until the probate proceedings is closed. Hence, even if the inventory was filed
only after the three-month period, this delay will not deprive the probate court of its jurisdiction to
approve it. However, under section 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, such unexplained delay can be
a ground for an administrator's removal.
\

Francisco Cuizon et al. vs. Hon. Jose R. Ramolete

May 29, 1984 | Gutierrez, Jr.

Facts:
As early as 1961, Marciano Cuizon applied for the registration of several parcels of land in Mandaue City docketed
as L.R. Case No. N-179. In 1970, he distributed his property between his two daughters, Rufina and Irene, to whom
the salt beds subject of the controversy was given. In 1971, Irene executed a Deed of Sale with Reservation of Usufruct
involving the said salt beds in favor of petitioners Franciso et al.

Although the decision in L.R. Case No. N-179 was rendered way back in 1972, the decree of registration and the
corresponding O.C.T. was issued only in 1976 in the name of Marciano Cuizon. In that same year, T.C.T No. 10477
covering the property in question was issued to Irene. The latter died in 1978.

During the extrajudicial settlement of the estate, Rufina, the mother of Francisco et al., adjudicated to herself all the
property of Irene including the salt beds in question. She then executed a deed of Confirmation of Sale wherein she
confirmed and ratified the 1971 deed of sale and renounced and waived whatever rights and interests and participation
she may have in the property in question in favor of the petitioners. The deed was annotated in T.C.T. No. 10477.
Subsequently, T.C.T. No. 12665 was issued in favor of the petitioners.

In 1978, Domingo Antigua, who allegedly was chosen by the heirs of Irene to act as administrator, was appointed
administrator by the CFI of Cebu. Antigua included the salt bed in the inventory of Irene’s estate and asked the Cebu
CFI to order petitioners to deliver the salt to him. The Cebu CFI granted the same.

Issue: Whether a court handling the intestate proceedings has jurisdiction over parcels of land already covered by a
TCT issued in favor owners who are not parties to the intestate proceedings if the said parcels of have been?

Held: No. It is a well-settled rule 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 equally claimed to
belong to outside parties. All said court could do is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the
inventory of properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is dispute, then 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.

In the instant case, the property involved is not only claimed by outside parties but it was sold seven years before the
death of the decedent and is duly titled in the name of the vendees who are not party to the proceedings.

In Bolisay vs. Alcid, the Court held that “if a property covered by Torrens Title is involved, the presumptive
conclusiveness of such title should be given due weight, and in the absence of strong compelling evidence to the
contrary, the holder thereof should be considered as the owner of the property in controversy until his title is nullified
or modified in an appropriate ordinary action.”

Having been apprised of the fact that the property in question was covered by a TCT issued in the name of third
parties, the respondent court should have denied the motion of the respondent administrator and excluded the property
in question from the inventory of the property of the estate.

Doctrine: Probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of the estate and equally
claimed to belong to outside parties.