TodayisThursday,November24,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L4656February23,1953
FRANCISCOMALLARI,ETAL.,plaintiffappellants,
vs.
AUGUSTOMALLARI,defendantappellee.
M.H.deJoyaandE.Y.Naluzforappellants.
A.M.Dizonforappellee.
MONTEMAYOR,J.:
For an easier apprehension of the present case and to form a sort of background, the following facts may be
stated.MariaMallaridiedonApril17,1949withoutissuebutleavingnephewsandatleastoneniece.Duringher
lifetime Maria Mallari owned among other things three parcel of land and onehalf of another parcel, in
Macabebe, Pampanga, all registered under the Torrens System. On July 12, 1938, she was supposed to have
donatedthefirstparcelcoveredbytransfercertificateoftitleNo.10048tohernephewDomicianoC.Mallari,and
thesecond,thirdandonehalfofthefourthparcelcoveredbytransfercertificatesoftitleNos.10046,10047and
10063 to the same Domiciano C. Mallari, her nephew Francisco Mallari and her niece Catalina Mallari. The
doneesacceptedthedonationsinthesamedeedordeedsandnewcertificatesoftitleNos.11409,11406,11407
and11408wereissuedtothem.Thereafter,thedoneestookpossessionoftheparcelsdonatedtothem.In1943
thedoneesDomiciano,FranciscoandCatalinaexecutedanextrajudicialpartitionoftheirjointproperties,among
themparcels2,3and4,asaresultofwhichparcels2and3wenttoDomicianoandparcel4wenttoFrancisco.
Catalina received other pieces of property. In 1946 this extrajudicial partition was registered and the
correspondingtransfercertificatesoftitlewereissuedtothem.
Marialeftwhatpurportedtobeawillandinthatinstrumentthefourparceloflandsaidtohavebeendonatedby
hertohernephewsandniecewerestilllistedaspartofherestate.OnMay7,1949,defendantAugustoMallari,
anothernephewofMariafiledapetitionfortheprobateofthewillofhisauntinspecialproceedingsNo.450inthe
CourtofFirstInstanceofPampanga(BranchIII)andAugustowasappointedspecialadministratoroftheestate.
OnJune11,1949,theheirofDomicianowhohadalreadydied,andFranciscoandCatalinafiledoppositiontothe
probate of the will based on statutory grounds and claiming that the four parcels of land could no longer be
disposedofinthewillbecausetheyhadpreviouslybeendonatedtothem.Contendingthatthedonationsofthe
four parcel in question were invalid and ineffective, and that consequently, said parcel still formed part of the
estate, Augusto as special administrator, petitioned the probate court to order the tenants of said four parcel
underpenaltyofcontemptofcourttodelivertohimthatportionoftheharvestcorrespondingtotheowner.This
petitionwasopposedbytheheirsofDomicianoandbyFranciscoonthegroundthattheywereinpossessionas
owners of the property and that therefore, the portion of the harvest corresponding to the owner belonged to
them.
OnOctober26,1949,FranciscoMallariandthefourheirsofDomicianonamedMagdalena,Marcelo,Florentina
andGorgonia,filedthepresentaction,civilcaseNo.261intheCourtofFirstInstanceofPampanga(BranchI)
claimingthatthefourparcelinquestion(1/2ofthe4th)belongedtothembyvirtueofthedonationmadebyMaria
Mallari,andallegingthatAugustoclaimsorassertstohaveaninterestinthesaidlands,andthat,"withoutany
authorityorrightwhatsoever,threatenstotake,bymeansofforce,violenceandintimidation,theexistingpalay
harvestonsaidlands,withouttheconsentoftheplaintiffandsaiddefendantisnowpreparingtotakesaidpalay,
and,unlessrestrainedbythisHonorableCourt,willdoso."PlaintiffsprayedthatAugustobecompelledtodisclose
thefactsuponwhichhebaseshisclaimandthatallhispretensionbepasseduponanddeterminedbythecourt,
andthatsaiddefendantbedeclarednottohaveanytitleorinterestwhatsoeveronsaidproperties,andthatthe
titleoftheplaintiffstheretobedeclaredvalidandbindingasagainstthewholeworld,andthatforthetimebeing,
defendantbeenjoinedfromtakingandremovinganyofthepalayfromthesaidparcels.Inthemeantimeoron
October27,1949,theprobatecourt(BranchIII)actinguponthepetitionofAugustoandtheoppositionthereto,
regardingthedeliveryoftheowner'sportionoftheharvestfromtheparcelsinquestion,issuedanordertothe
effectthattheSpecialAdministrationwasauthorizedtobepresentwheneverthedivisionoftheharvestbetween
thetenantsandtheoppositorswasheldinordertorecordthecorrectamountoftheharvest.ThenonJanuary

18,1950,MarceloMallari,oneoftheplaintiffshereinandoneoftheoppositorsintheprobateofthewillfiledin
specialproceedingsNo.450acomplaintaccusingspecialadministratorAugustoMallariofcontemptofcourtfor
havingusedforceinenteringthefourparcelsinquestioninthatbetweenDecember28th,1949andJanuary4th
1950, he with six other persons all armed with firearms and bolos entered the four parcel in question and took
from the streams used as fishpond inside said lands five banca loads of fish. Acting upon his complaint, the
probatecourtissuedanorderdatedJuly5,1950,dismissingthecomplaint"withoutprejudiceonthepartofanyof
thepartiestotakesubsequentactionwhichtheymaydeemproperinthepremises."
GoingbacktocivilcaseNo.261inBrachI,insteadofansweringthecomplaint,Augustofiledamotiontodismiss
onthegroundthatthecomplaintdidnotstatefactssufficienttoconstituteacauseofactionandthatthecourthad
nojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.Histheorywasthatthemainobjectofthecomplaintwasinjunctionandthis
being an ancillary remedy, could not stand alone. His principal contention, however, was that the court had no
jurisdictionbecausetheprobatecourthadalreadyacquiredexclusivejurisdictionunderspecialproceedingsNo.
450.Actinguponthismotiontodismissthetrialcourt(BranchI)granteditanddismissedthecomplaintbyorder
ofSeptember19,1950onthegroundthatthepartiesandthesubjectmatterinvolvedintheprobateproceedings
andintheordinaryactionwerethesame,andthatthepresentactionwasineffectaduplicationoftheprobate
proceedings and that a final judgment in the probate proceedings will amount to an adjudication of the present
action.Plaintiffsarenowappealingfromsaidorder.
It is clear that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. The present action is not a duplication of the
probateproceedingsalthothepartiesandsubjectmattermaybeidentical.Itisawellsettledrulethataprobate
court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to
propertiesclaimedtobeapartoftheestateandwhichareequallyclaimedtobelongtooutsideparties.Allthat
thesaidcourtcoulddoasregardssaidpropertiesistodeterminewhethertheyshouldorshouldnotbeincluded
intheinventoryorlistofpropertiestobeadministeredbytheadministrator.Ifthereisnodispute,wellandgood
butifthereis,thentheparties,theadministratorandtheopposingpartieshavetoresorttoanordinaryactionfor
afinaldeterminationoftheconflictingclaimsoftitlebecausetheprobatecourtcannotdoso.(FernandoBaquial
vs.FelixAmihan,Supra,p.501andauthoritiescitedtherein.)Itisthereforeevidentthattheconflictingclaimsin
the present action cannot be adjudicated in the probate proceedings. True, the parties and the properties
involvedarethesamebutonlyinanordinaryactionmaybedeterminedwhetherthefourparcelinquestionwere
reallyvalidlydonatedtotheplaintiffs,andwhethertheydonotnowformpartoftheestateofMariaMallarisubject
to disposition under the will whose probate is still pending. That was the reason why when the special
administratoraskedthatthetenantsonthefourparcelsoflandbeorderedtodelivertohimtheowner'sshare,
the probate court did not grant the petition but merely authorized the special administrator to be present at the
divisionoftheharvestinordertorecordtheamountofthesame.Again,whenoneoftheplaintiffaskedthatthe
special administrator be punished for contempt of court for forcibly entering the lands and removing fish
therefrom,thecourtdismissedthecomplaintwithoutprejudicetothepartiesconcernedtotakeanysubsequent
actionwhichtheymaydeemproperinthepremises.
Inviewoftheforegoing,theorderappealedfromdismissingthecomplaintissetasideandthiscaseisordered
remandedtotrialcourtforfurtherproceedings,withcosts.
Paras,C.J.,Feria,Pablo,Bengzon,Padilla,Tuason,Reyes,Jugo,BautistaAngeloandLabradorJJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation