Jurisdiction of Probate Court (Rule 73 Venue and Process)

Topic

Thelma M. Aranas vs. Teresita V. Mercado

Title of the Case

G.R. No. 156407

GR No.

January 15, 2014

Date

Doctrine:
The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership of
properties for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the inventory to be
submitted by the administrator.

Facts:
Emigdio Mercado died intestate and survived by his second wife, Teresita
Mercado and their five children and his two children from his first marriage
Franklin Mercado and Thelma Aranas. During his lifetime, Emigdio owned
corporate shares in Mervir Realty Corporation and Cebu Emerson
Transportation Corporation. He assigned his real properties in exchange for
corporate stocks of Mervir Realty, and sold his real property in Badian, Cebu to
Mervir Realty.

Teresita was appointed as the administrator of Emigios estate. She submitted

an inventory which indicated that at the time of Emigios death, he had left no
real properties but only personal properties worth P6,675,435.25 consisting of
cash, furniture and fixtures, pieces of jewelry, shares of stock of Mervir Realty
and Cebu Emerson. Thelma questioned the inventory and moved that the RTC
direct Teresita to amend it and to be examined regarding it.

With the parties agreeing to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court
on the issue of what properties should be included in or excluded from the
inventory, the RTC assumed jurisdiction. After series of hearings, the RTC
issued an order finding and holding that the inventory submitted by Teresita
had excluded properties that should be include.
Teresita, joined by other heirs, timely sought reconsideration on the ground
that one of the real properties affected, Lot No. 3353 located in Badian, Cebu,
had already been sold to Mervir Realty, and that the parcels of land covered by
the deed of assignment had already come into the possession of and registered
in the name of Mervir Realty. RTC denied the motion for reconsideration stating
that there was no cogent reason for the reconsideration, and that the movants
agreement as heirs to submit to the RTC the issue of what properties should be
included or excluded from the inventory already estopped them from
questioning its jurisdiction to pass upon the issue. Hence, it was elevated to
the CA.

CA ruled that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in
refusing to approve the inventory, and in ordering her as administrator to
include real properties that had been transferred to Mervir Realty.

Issue:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to decide on the issue of what
properties should be included or excluded from the inventory.

Ruling:
Yes. The jurisdiction of the trial court as an intestate court is special and
limited. The trial court cannot adjudicate title to properties claimed to be a part
of the estate but are claimed to belong to third parties by title adverse to that of
the decedent and the estate, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the
decedent. All that the trial court can do regarding said properties is to
determine whether or not they should be included in the inventory of
properties to be administered by the administrator. Such determination is
provisional and may be still revised.