Borromeo v. Canonoy
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and possession of thirteen lots of land. These lots were claimed by Tomas, Amelia, and Fortunato Borromeo to have been sold by the deceased Vito Borromeo to Cebu Arcade, T. L. Borromeo y Cia. during his lifetime. The Special Administrator of Vito Borromeo's Estate opposed their exclusion from the estate inventory. 2. Procedural History: A motion by Tomas, Amelia, and Fortunato Borromeo to exclude these thirteen lots from the estate inventory was denied by the lower court. This denial was reiterated in the decision on the probate of Vito Borromeo's will. Subsequently, Tomas, Amelia, and Fortunato Borromeo initiated Civil Case No. R-7646 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against the Special Administrator to recover ownership and possession of the lots. The defendant Special Administrator moved for a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses, arguing the issue of ownership was already involved in a prior appeal (G.R. No. L-18498), but this motion was denied, leading to the present prohibition action. 3. The Petition: Petitioners Remedios Cuenco Vda. de Borromeo and others filed an original action for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. They sought to prohibit the respondent judge from further proceeding with Civil Case No. R-7646. The petition argued that the issues of ownership and possession of the thirteen lots were already pending resolution in a related appeal (G.R. No. L-18498) and that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership with finality, a stance previously affirmed by the Supreme Court in its decision in G.R. No. L-18498.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge should be prohibited from proceeding with the separate civil action for ownership while the appeal in the probate proceeding is pending.
Ruling
The petition for prohibition is denied, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued is set aside. The respondent judge is not prohibited from proceeding with Civil Case No. R-7646.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the separate civil action for ownership was proper and should proceed. Applying the doctrine established in G.R. No. L-18498, the Court clarified that a probate court acts with limited jurisdiction and cannot finally adjudicate questions of title to property. While a probate court may provisionally decide whether a property should be included or excluded from the estate's inventory, this decision is not binding as to final ownership. The Court cited a long line of jurisprudence, including Ongsinco v. Borja and Garcia v. Garcia, which mandates that ownership disputes between the estate and third parties must be resolved in an ordinary action. Since the ruling in the probate case regarding the thirteen lots was expressly made provisional, it did not bar the filing of a separate suit for recovery of ownership. Therefore, Judge Canonoy did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction in allowing Civil Case No. R-7646 to proceed. Consequently, the petitioners failed to establish the grounds necessary for a writ of prohibition.
Main Doctrine
A probate court, in the exercise of its special jurisdiction, has no jurisdiction to determine with finality the question of ownership of properties sought to be included or excluded from the inventory of an estate. Such matter must be litigated in a separate action, although the probate court may provisionally pass upon the question of inclusion or exclusion without prejudice to its final determination in an appropriate separate action.