Gregorio v. Madarang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Casimiro V. Madarang, Sr. died intestate on June 3, 1995, leaving an estate valued at approximately P200,000.00. He was survived by his wife, Dolores, and five children: Casimiro, Jr., Jose, Ramiro, Vicente, and Corazon. During the intestate proceedings, Jose filed a comment on the initial inventory report, alleging that six lots, including Lot 829-B-4-B, were omitted. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ordered the inclusion of these lots, presuming they were conjugal properties acquired during the marriage. However, after further proceedings and a motion for reconsideration, the RTC modified its order, excluding Lot 829-B-4-B from the inventory, while directing the administratrix to submit a revised inventory and render an accounting. Procedural History: Following the RTC's modified order excluding Lot 829-B-4-B, Jose filed a Notice of Appeal. Before the Court of Appeals (CA), Jose filed a "Motion to Withdraw Petition," which was opposed by his co-heirs (petitioners herein). The CA granted Jose's motion, reasoning that it would not prejudice the oppositors' rights. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied it, stating that the parties had consented to the non-inclusion of Lot 829-B-4-B and that the petitioners themselves had argued for its exclusion in their appeal brief. The CA's resolution affirming the exclusion of Lot 829-B-4-B is the subject of the present petition. The Petition: The petitioners, heirs of Casimiro V. Madarang, Jr., filed this petition for review, arguing that the Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by passing on the merits of Jose Madarang's appeal from the RTC order excluding Lot 829-B-4-B. They contend that the CA's sole issue should have been the withdrawal of Jose's petition. The Supreme Court, however, found that the petitioners themselves, in their motion for reconsideration before the CA, prayed for the court to "resolv[e] the merits" of Jose's appeal. The Court further held that questions regarding advancements made by the decedent to an heir, such as the alleged donation of Lot 829-B-4-B to Vicente Madarang, can be determined by the court having jurisdiction over the estate proceedings, and the final order is binding. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the CA's resolution and directing the inclusion of Lot 829-B-4-B in the inventory.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in passing upon the merits of Jose Madarang's appeal when it granted his Motion to Withdraw Petition. Whether Lot 829-B-4-B should be excluded from the inventory of the intestate estate of Casimiro V. Madarang, Sr.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed November 6, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE. Petitioner Corazon M. Gregorio and her co-administratrix Dolores Madarang are DIRECTED to include Lot 829-B-4-B in the Inventory of the properties of the intestate estate of Casimiro V. Madarang, Sr. The records of the case are remanded to the court of origin, the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 57, which is DIRECTED to proceed with the disposition of the case with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in passing upon the merits of Jose Madarang's appeal. The Court noted that in their Motion for Reconsideration of the CA's grant of Jose's Motion to Withdraw Petition, the petitioners themselves prayed for the Court to "render a decision resolving the merits of the Partial Appeal of petitioner-appellant Jose Madarang." Therefore, the petitioners cannot now claim that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it addressed the very issue they asked it to resolve. The appellate court's resolution was a response to the petitioners' own prayer, making their contention without merit. On the exclusion of Lot 829-B-4-B from the inventory: The Supreme Court ruled that Lot 829-B-4-B should not have been excluded from the inventory. While a probate court generally cannot determine questions of title and ownership, it can make a provisional determination for inclusion or exclusion in the inventory. However, the Court emphasized that when the issue involves collation or advancement by the decedent to an heir, the probate court can pass upon the question of title and ownership. Article 1061 of the Civil Code mandates that compulsory heirs must bring into the mass of the estate any property received from the decedent by donation or gratuitous title for computation in the determination of legitimes and account of partition. Furthermore, Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that questions as to advancements may be heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings. Since Vicente's claim over Lot 829-B-4-B was based on a deed of donation from his parents, it falls under the category of advancement or collation, which the probate court has the authority to determine for the purpose of inclusion in the inventory. The Court found that the facts did not call for a provisional determination but rather for the application of the rules on collation and advancement.
Main Doctrine
A probate court, while generally lacking jurisdiction over questions of title and ownership, may make a provisional determination of ownership for purposes of inclusion or exclusion in the inventory of a decedent's estate. However, when the issue involves collation or advancement by the decedent to an heir, the probate court can pass upon the question of title and ownership, as provided by Article 1061 of the Civil Code and Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court.