RULE 73

by Alberto
spouses.

in

favor

of

the

Saldana

LEE et.al. vs. CA

G.R. No. L-37135 December 28, 1973

SIMEON A. LEE and ABUNDIO RAGANAS, Petitioners,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DOLORES R. SALDANA,
SALVADOR SALDANA, CESAR T. VILLAREAL, ESPITASIA
TAN and ALBERTO TABAR TABADA, Respondents.

TEEHANKEE, J.:

FACTS:
1. In Special Proceeding No. 1962-0, the
estate of the late Andres Tabar was being
settled. During its pendency and before
the partition of the estate among three (3)
heirs namely, Esteban Tabar, Valentina
Tabar Cansancio and respondent Alberto
Tabar Tabada; Alberto sold all his rights
and interest over such estate to
petitioners Lee and Raganas.
2. On July 6, 1963 the above Special
Proceeding
was
terminated
without
partitioning and distributing the estate
allegedly because the heirs preferred to
receive the properties pro-indiviso.
3. Afterwards, the heirs discovered some
more real properties belonging to the
estate but without reopening Special
Proceeding No. 1962-0, they executed an
extra-judicial partition of the estate. On
the same date, Alberto executed a Deed of
Sale in favor of the Saldana spouses,
covering his share consisting of proindiviso of three (3) lots.
4. The Saldana spouses in turn sold the same
to respondents Villareal and Tan.
5. Herein petitioners then filed before the CFI
of Cebu, Civil Case No. R-9247, an action
for the annulment of such deed executed

6. The CFI rendered a decision declaring the

sale in favor of the petitioners as valid and
binding while the second sale in favor of
the Saldana spouses was declared null
and void. The questioned properties were
then ordered returned to petitioners. This
decision
after
becoming
final
was
executed.
7. Meanwhile, in order to quiet their title,
petitioners instituted Civil Case No. R10989 where the court required them to
show that all taxes and other obligations
of the estate had already been paid and
that the special proceeding for the
settlement of the estate had already been
terminated and the estate distributed.
8. The CFI then issued its Order to Archive
the case in the meantime where the
parties were required to reopen the
Intestate Estate Proceeding in Special
Proceeding No. 1962-O for the distribution
of the disputed properties herein.
9. Denying petitioners action for certiorari,
the appellate court stated that the CFI did
not dismiss Civil Case No. R-10989 but
merely directed the case to be archived. It
ruled that such course of action of the
Cebu court was in consonance with this
Court's
ruling
in Macias
vs.
Uy
Kim reiterating the rule in Guilas vs.
Judge, CFI of Pampanga, that: The probate
court loses jurisdiction of an estate under
administration only after the payment of
all the debts and the remaining estate
delivered to the heirs entitled to receive
the same. The finality of the approval of
the project of partition by itself alone does
not terminate the probate proceeding ....
10. Reconsideration having been denied,
hence, this petition for review on
certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI of Cebu, as

probate court, has jurisdiction to decide the issue
of the ownership of herein questioned properties.

HELD: No, the probate court is without

jurisdiction to decide the issue of ownership; it
must be litigated in a separate action.
1. None of the three heirs nor any affected
party has ever questioned the extrajudicial partition made when the 3 heirs
discovered some other real properties
belonging to the estate.
2. What
remains
is
a conflict
of
ownership between
petitioners
and
respondents (except Alberto Tabar Tabada)
who claim title to the same parcels by
right of purchase from Alberto. This
conflict is properly the subject matter of
the action to quiet title filed by petitioners
against respondents in the Cebu court,
which should be duly determined and
adjudicated by it instead of ordered
archived. This conflict of ownership
between the parties by alleged right of
purchase
from
the
heir
Alberto
is beyond the jurisdiction of the probate
court to determine. It is manifest,
therefore, that what properly applies in
the case at bar is the controlling doctrine

that probate courts have no jurisdiction to

determine
with
finality conflicts
of
ownership.
3. By the same token, the claim of the
intervenor in the action below, one
Constancio
Cabreros,
who
claims
ownership to the same parcels by right of
purchase from the heirs of Antonio and
Maria Sadorra who, he claims, are the
legal owners of the lands in question as
against the deceased Andres Tabar
involves a conflict of ownership that
is beyond the jurisdiction of the probate
court and should properly be determined
and adjudicated in the petitioner's action
to quiet title.
4. Nothing but undue and fruitless delay will
be gained by the Cebu court's order to
archive the case rather than to discharge
its
task
of
determining
and deciding the conflict of ownership
properly pertaining to its jurisdiction and
submitted to it for adjudication.

5. CAs decision is hereby set aside. CFIs

order to archive Civil Case No. R-10989 is
hereby ordered set aside and said court is
directed to proceed with the hearing and
determination of the said action to quiet
title on its merits.