Sebial Vs Sebial
Sebial Vs Sebial
Sebial Vs Sebial
filed after the three-month period does not deprive the probate court of jurisdiction
to approve it. However, the administrators unexplained delay in filing the
inventory may be a ground for his removal.
B. Yes, ordinary civil action for recovery of property and not an administration
proceeding is the proper remedy.
The lower courts order of December 11, 1961, approving the amended inventory
of November 11, 1961, is not a conclusive determination of what assets
constituted the decedents estate and of the valuations thereof. Such a
determination is only provisional in character and is without prejudice to a
judgment in a separate action on the issue of title or ownership.
We hold that the said order is erroneous and should be set aside because the
probate court failed to receive evidence as to the ownership of the said parcels of
land. The general rule is that questions of title to property cannot be passed upon
in a testate or intestate proceeding. However, when the parties are all heirs of the
decedent, it is optional upon them to submit to the probate court the question of
title to property and, when so submitted, the probate court may definitely pass
judgment thereon (3 Morans Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., pp. 448,
473; Alvarez v. Espiritu, L-18833, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 892).
Lorenzo Rematado and Lazaro Recuelo are not heirs of the decedent. They are
third persons. The rule is that matters affecting property under administration may
be taken cognizance of by the probate court in the course of the intestate
proceeding provided that the interests of third persons are not prejudiced
(Cunanan v. Amparo, 80 Phil. 227; Ibid, 3 Moran 473).
However, third persons to whom the decedents assets had been fraudulently
conveyed may be cited to appear in court and be examined under oath as to how
they came into the possession of the decedents assets (Sec. 6, Rule 87, Rules of
Court) but a separate action would be necessary to recover the said assets
(Chanco v. Madrilejos, 12 Phil. 543; Guanco v. Philippine National Bank, 54 Phil.
244).
WHEREFORE, (a) the probate courts order of December 11, 1961, granting the
administratrixs motion of May 4, 1961 for the delivery to her of certain properties is set
aside; (b) its other order of December 11, 1961 approving the amended inventory should
not be considered as a final adjudication on the ownership of the properties listed in the
inventory and (c) this case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in
accordance with the guidelines laid down in this decision. No costs.