Pastor v CA  Pending motion, Pastor Jr.

and his wife filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and
Plana, J. prohibition with a prayer for writ of preliminary injunction assailing the writ of execution
and garnishment issued by the probate court. This and their MR was denied.
SUMMARY: Parents died and the legit kids (2) fought with their illegit brother. Will was entered  Thus this petition.
into probate. A reconveyance suit was also filed in another court because shares in the company
subject of the will were already in the names of the legit kids. Pending that suit, the Probate Court WN the Probate Order resolved with finality the questions of ownership and intrinsic
issued an Order saying it was the illegit kid who owned the shares. SC said: validity? NO.
The question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the Probate Court cannot resolve
with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not  In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and large is restricted to
be included in the inventory of estate properties, the Probate Court may pass upon the title thereto, the extrinsic validity of the will.
but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a  As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the Probate Court
separate action to resolve title. cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain
property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties, the
FACTS: Probate Court may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not
 Spouses Alvaro Pastor, Sr. (Pastor Sr) and Sofia Bossio, both Spanish subjects,were conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title.
survived by their two legitimate children Alvaro Pastor, Jr.(Alvaro) and Sofia and an  The Order sought to be executed by the assailed Order of execution is the Probate Order
illegitimate child, Lewellyn Quemada. allegedly resolved the question of ownership of the disputed mining properties. However,
o Alvaro is a Philippine citizen, having been naturalized in 1936. Sofia is a Spanish nowhere in the dispositive portion is there a declaration of ownership of specific
subject. Quemada is a Filipino by his mother's citizenship. properties.
 Quemada filed a petition for the probate and allowance of an alleged holographic will of  On the contrary, it is manifested therein that ownership was not resolved. For it confined
Pastor Sr. with the CFI Cebu, Branch I (Probate Court) which contained only one itself to the question of extrinsic validity of the will, and the need for and propriety of
testamentary disposition: a legacy in favor of Quemada consisting of 30% of Alvaro’s appointing a special administrator. Thus it allowed and approved the holographic will “with
42% share in the operation by Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation respect to its extrinsic validity, the same having been duly authenticated pursuant to the
(ATLAS) of some mining claims in Pina-Barot, Cebu. requisites or solemnities prescribed by law.”
 Thereafter, the probate court appointed Quemada as special administrator of the entire  It declared that the intestate estate administration aspect must proceed subject to the
estate of Pastor Sr. whether or not covered or affected by the holographic will. outcome of the suit for reconveyance of ownership and possession of real and personal
o Quemada instituted against Alvaro and his wife an action for reconveyance of properties.
alleged properties of estate which included the properties subject of the legacy  The Probate Court did not resolve the question of ownership of the properties listed in
which were in the names of spouses Alvaro and Ma. Elena, who claimed to be the estate inventory, considering that the issue of ownership was the very subject of
the owners in their own rights, and not by inheritance. controversy in the reconveyance suit that was still pending.
 The Probate Court issued an order allowing the will to probate. Quemada filed pleading  It was, therefore, error for the assailed implementing Orders to conclude that the Probate
after pleading asking for payment of his legacy and seizure of the properties subject of Order adjudged with finality the question of ownership of the mining properties and
said legacy. royalties.
 The order was affirmed by CA.
o On review, the SC dismissed the petition and remanded the same to the probate
court after denying reconsideration.
 For two years after remand of the case to the probate court, all pleadings of both parties
remained unacted upon.
 The Probate Court set the hearing on the intrinsic validity of the will for March 25, 1980,
but upon objection of Alvaro and Sofia on the ground of pendency of the reconveyance
suit, no hearing was held
o So the Probate Court required the parties to submit their respective position
papers as to how much inheritance Quemada was entitled to receive
 While the reconveyance suit was still pending in another court, the probate court
issued Order of Execution and Garnishment, resolving the question of ownership
of the royalties payable by ATLAS .
o It ruled that the legacy to Quemada was not inofficious.
o Pursuant to said order, ATLAS was directed to remit directly to Quemada the
42% royalties due to decedent’s estate, of which Quemada was authorized to
retain 75% for himself as legatee.
 The 33% share of Alvaro and/or his assignees was ordered garnished to answer for the
accumulated legacy of Quemada.
 Quemada succeeded in obtaining a Writ of Execution and Garnishment.
o The oppositors sought reconsideration thereof but in the meantime,
o the probate court ordered suspension of payment of all royalties due Alvaro until
after resolution of the motion for reconsideration.