NATCHER VS CA

Facts: Graciano is married to graciana, they have 6 children. They are the owners of a
parcel of land with an area of 9,322 SQ in manila. Upon the death of Graciana, Graciano
together with his 6 children entered into a extrajudicial settlement of the said estate, they
divided the said property where a new title was given.
Graciano donated to his children a portion of his interest in the land amounting to 4,949.30
SQ leaving only 447 SQ registered under his name as covered by a title. Subsequently, his
remaining lot has also been divided and the other portion was sold to a third person.
Graciano married Natcher, during their marriage, Graciano sold his remaining land to
Natcher. Graciano died leaving Natcher and his 6 children as heirs.
The Children of Graciano filed a complaint against Natcher stating that she employed fraud
misrepresentation and forgery, aquired the land by making it appear that Graciano executed
a deed of sale over the said land, in consequence their legitime has been impaired.
RTC: Deed of sale is prohibited by law
DOS is not a valid donation
DOS may however be an extension of advanc inheritance.
CA: RTC do not have jurisdiction, as the PROBATE COURT has exclusive jurisdiction to make
a just and
legal distribution of the estate.
RTC was trying an ordinary action, hence the acts performed should have been in a
probate court.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC, acting as a court of gen. jurisdiction, adjudicate matters relating to the
settlement of the estate of a deceased person PARTICULARLY ON QUESTIONS AS TO
ADVANCEMENT OF PROPERTY MADE BY THE DECEDENT TO ANY OF THE HEIRS?
HELD: THE SC, differentiated Action VS. Special Proceedings. an action for reconveyance
and annulment of title with damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement
of the estate of a deceased
person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a
special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application of specific rules as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
The matter in this case fall w/in the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court in the exercise
of its limited jurisdiction.
Under Sec 2, Rule 90 of ROC, 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.
While it may be true that the Rules used the word MAY it is nevertheless clear that it
contemplates a probate court when it speaks of the court having jurisdiction of the estate
proceedings.
RTC acting in its general jurisdiction is devoid of authority to render an adjudication and
resolve the said issue.