Camaya v. Patulandong
423 SCRA 480
FACTS:
On November 17, 1972, Rufina Reyes (testatrix) executed a notarized will wherein she devised Lot no. 288-A to her grandson Anselmo Mangulabnan. During her lifetime, the testatrix herself filed the petition for the probate of her will before the CFI. Later, on June 27, 1973, the testatrix executed a codicil modifying her will by devising the said Lot 288-A in favor of her four children Bernardo (the executor), Simplicia, Huillerma and Juan (all surnamed Patulandong), and her grandson Mangulabnan – to the extent of 1/5 each.
Mangulabnan later sought the delivery to him by executor Patulandong of the title of Lot 288-A, but Patulandong refused to heed the request because of the codicial which modified the will of the testatrix. Thus, Mangulabnan filed an ‘action for partition’ against Patulandong in the RTC. The court in this partition ordered the partitioning of the property. However, the court holds that ‘the partition is without prejudice to the probate of the codicil in accordance with the Rules of Court.’ So, by virtue of the decision in partition case, Mangulabnan caused the cancellation of the title of the testatrix over Lot 288-A, and another TCT was issued in his name. Mangulabnan later sold to herein petitioners Camayas Lot no. 288-A by a Deed of Sale, and thus, a TCT was issued under the name of the Camayas.
However, come now the decision of the probate court admitting the codicil, and disposing that the Deed of Sale in favor of the Camayas, and the corresponding TCT issued in their name are null and void, and that the Register of Dees was ordered to issue instead corresponding certificates of titles to the aforesaid four children of the testatrix, and her grandson Mangulabnan to the extent of 1/5 each pursuant to the codicil.
The Camayas and Mangulabnan filed an MR. But the probate court denied this. The CA affirmed the decision of the probate court. Thus, the case was brought to the SC via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUES:
1.Whether the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared null and void and ordered the cancellation of the TCT of Camayas and the deed of sale.
2.Whether the final judgment in partition case bars the allowance of the codicil.
HELD:
1.As to the first issue, the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared the deed of sale as null and void, and also as to the cancellation of the TCTs under the name of the Camayas. It is well-settled rule that a probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties. All that said court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether they should not be included in the inventory. If there is no dispute, well and good; but if there is, then the parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action for final determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate court cannot do so. Having been apprised of the fact that the property in question was in the possession of third parties and more important, covered by a transfer certificate of title issued in the name of such third parties, the respondent court should have denied the motion of the respondent administrator and excluded the property in question from the inventory of the property of the estate. It had no authority to deprive such third persons of their possession and ownership of the property. The probate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared the deed of sale and the titles of the Camayas as null and void, it having had the effect of depriving them possession and ownership of the property.
2.As to the second issue, petitioners argue that by allowing the codicil to probate, it in effect amended the final judgment in the partition case which is not allowed by law; and that petitioner Camayas are innocent purchasers for value and enjoy the legal presumption that the transfer was lawful. Petitioners’ argument does not persuade. Though the judgment in the partition case had become final and executory as it was not appealed, it specifically provided in its dispositive portion that the decision was “without prejudice [to] … the probate of the codicil.” The rights of the prevailing parties in said case were thus subject to the outcome of the probate of the codicil.
The probate court being bereft of authority to rule upon the validity of petitioners’ titles, there is no longer any necessity to dwell on the merits of petitioners Camayas’ claim that they are innocent purchasers for value and enjoy the legal presumption that the transfer was lawful.
The petition is granted in part. The decision of the probate court allowing the codicil is affirmed. But, the declaration of the aforesaid Deed of Sale, and the order to reissue corresponding certificates of titles to the four children of the testratrix, and her grandson Mangulabnan are set aside, without prejudice to the respondent’s ventilation of their right in an appropriate action.
