De Borja v. Encarnacion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and possession of a parcel of land. Petitioners, who are the surviving children of Quintin de Borja, claim exclusive ownership of this land. They assert that the administrator of the intestate estate of Marcelo de Borja has no right to claim this property as part of the estate. Procedural History: The land in question was included in a project of partition submitted by commissioners in the intestate estate of Marcelo de Borja (Special Proceeding No. R-2414). Despite objections from the petitioners, this partition was approved by the Court of First Instance of Rizal and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. The petitioners, having been declared sole heirs of their father Quintin de Borja, were entitled to a share in the estate, and one of them was the administratrix of their father's estate. When the administrator of Marcelo de Borja's estate refused to deliver the disputed land, the petitioners sought an order for execution of the partition from the probate court, which was granted and defended on appeal. The Petition: The petitioners are seeking a review of the respondent Judge's order directing them to deliver the disputed parcel of land to the administrator of the intestate estate of Marcelo de Borja. They contend that the administrator's remedy to recover the property should be a separate action at law, not a motion within the existing intestate proceeding. They argue that the respondent Judge lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order and that they were not afforded a proper hearing on their claim of ownership. The Supreme Court, however, finds that the probate court has the authority to order the delivery of property within the estate proceeding, especially when the partition has been approved and the property is considered in custodia legis. The Court also notes that the petitioners are estopped from challenging the partition due to their prior actions in seeking its execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge had jurisdiction to issue an order directing the petitioners to deliver a parcel of land to the administrator of the intestate estate of Marcelo de Borja. Whether the petitioners are estopped from attacking the validity of the partition or any part thereof.
Ruling
The petition is denied with costs against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court held that the probate court has jurisdiction within the intestate proceeding to order the delivery of a property assigned in an approved project of partition to the person entitled thereto, even if such property is in the possession of "any other person," particularly when that "other person" is an heir already under the court's jurisdiction. This is consistent with Section 1 of Rule 91, which allows heirs to recover their shares from anyone possessing them. The Court cited the case of De Jesus vs. Daza to support the principle that the probate court, having custody and control of the estate, is the most logical authority to effectuate partition within the same proceeding, avoiding unnecessary delay, expense, and inconvenience. The Court further emphasized that in the present case, the partition had not only been approved but also affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the petitioners themselves had previously sought execution of this partition, reinforcing the probate court's authority. The property in question was considered in custodia legis. On the issue of estoppel: The Court ruled that the petitioners are estopped from attacking the validity of the partition. Having actively participated in the proceedings, including seeking the execution of the partition and vigorously defending the probate court's order for execution when challenged via certiorari, they cannot now repudiate parts of it. The principle that a party cannot benefit from a judgment or agreement while simultaneously disavowing its unfavorable aspects was applied. Their actions precluded them from challenging the partition collaterally. The Court noted that the petitioners' claim of exclusive ownership had been concluded by the partition, which had become a judgment of the court. Any challenge to the partition should have been through a motion for reconsideration or modification based on fraud, mistake, or inadvertence, not a collateral attack.
Main Doctrine
A probate court has jurisdiction within the intestate proceeding to order the delivery of a property assigned in an approved project of partition to the person entitled thereto, even if such property is in the possession of another heir, as the property is considered in custodia legis.