Baybayan vs. Aquino

A probate court's determination of ownership of property claimed by a third party by title adverse to the decedent and his estate is not final or ultimate in nature and is without prejudice to the right of an interested party to raise the question of ownership in a proper action. The Court of First Instance, acting as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction.

The petitioners Pedro E. Baybayan, Cipriano Evangelista, and spouses Bartolome and Consuelo Baybayan claimed to be the registered owners of lots covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. 50269 and No. 50270 of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan. The private respondents, claiming to be nephews and nieces of Vicente Oria who died intestate in 1945, had obtained adjudication of his estate in special proceedings. The dispute concerned the identity of the lands subject of the special proceedings, which the petitioners claimed as their own registered property.

Private respondents, claiming to be nephews and nieces of Vicente Oria who died intestate in 1945 in Balungao, Pangasinan, filed a petition for the summary settlement of the decedent's estate on 19 January 1960 in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Tayug Branch, docketed as Special Proceeding No. T-300. After due publication and hearing, the probate court issued an order adjudicating the estate to the heirs and ordered them to submit a project of partition. Sometime in 1971, the case was transferred to the Rosales Branch and docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 24-R.

On 18 September 1974, the probate court confirmed the adjudication and ordered Eulalia Evangelista to deliver the respective shares of her co-heirs, to make an accounting of the produce thereof from 1960, and to deliver said produce or pay its equivalent. A writ of execution was subsequently issued, and a writ of possession was also issued, placing the private respondents in possession of their respective shares. However, when a representative of the private respondents went to cultivate the portion adjudicated to them, he was prevented by Jose Diaz and Cipriano Evangelista, prompting the private respondents to file a motion to cite them in contempt of court.

As a consequence, the petitioners, claiming to be the registered owners of the lots involved, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Rosales Branch, docketed as Civil Case No. 231-R, against the Deputy Sheriff and the private respondents, for the quieting of their title, plus damages, and to restrain the defendants from enforcing the writ of execution issued in Spec. Proc. No. 24-R. Meanwhile, at the hearing of the motion for contempt, the question of the identity of the lands subject of Spec. Proc. No. 24-R was brought up, so the probate court ordered a relocation survey and commissioned a geodetic engineer to undertake the survey. After the survey, the commissioner reported that the lands delivered by the Deputy Sheriff to the heirs of Vicente Oria pursuant to the writ of possession are registered in the names of the petitioners under TCT No. 50269 and TCT No. 50270.

By reason thereof, the probate court, in an order dated 30 October 1975, dismissed the contempt charge against Jose Diaz and Cipriano Evangelista. However, the same court ordered the petitioners to amend their complaint in Civil Case No. 231-R since "it is necessary that an amended complaint be filed by Pedro Baybayan in order to determine whether or not the property in question is part of the property under Spec. Proc. No. 24-R, inasmuch as it is now the property claimed by him which is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 50269." Pursuant thereto, the petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion in Civil Case No. 231-R, to which was attached an amended complaint wherein some defendants were dropped. The respondent Judge, however, found that the Amended Complaint did not comply with his order of 30 October 1975 to exclude Lot E and dismissed the case "without prejudice on the part of the plaintiffs to file a proper complaint for the recovery of ownership or possession of the property in controversy which is Lot B in the relocation plan and formerly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 23684, now under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 50269." The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on 24 December 1975, prompting them to file the petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

• Lack of Authority to Issue the Orders: Counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent Judge had no authority under the law, both substantive and procedural, to issue the questioned orders because the order to amend the complaint was issued in, and in connection with, Spec. Proc. No. 24-R where the petitioners are not even parties.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondents' arguments.

• Jurisdiction of the Probate Court: Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in dismissing the petitioners' complaint for their alleged failure to amend their complaint to exclude Lot E.
• Validity of the Order to Amend: Whether the order to amend the complaint was vague and hazy such that the petitioners should not be faulted for the amended complaint's alleged non-compliance.

• Jurisdiction of the Probate Court: Yes. The respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in dismissing the complaint. The probate court's determination of ownership of Lot E is not final or ultimate in nature and is without prejudice to the right of an interested party to raise the question of ownership in a proper action.
• Validity of the Order to Amend: Yes. The order to amend the complaint was vague and hazy and did not specify what the amendments should be or how the complaint should be amended, so the petitioners should not be faulted if the amended complaint did not contain the allegations the respondent Judge wanted.

• Jurisdiction of the Probate Court: The Court found that the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint. The findings of the respondent Judge as to the ownership of Lot E after the hearing conducted in Spec. Proc. No. 24-R do not justify the order to amend the complaint since the determination of ownership by a court exercising probate jurisdiction is not final or ultimate in nature. The Court cited the well-settled rule that "when questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate of a deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased, but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be determined in the courts of administrative proceedings. The Court of First Instance, acting as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a court of first instance."
• Validity of the Order to Amend: The Court held that the order to amend the complaint was vague and hazy and did not specify what the amendments should be or how the complaint should be amended. Consequently, the petitioners should not be faulted if the amended complaint subsequently filed by them in Civil Case No. 231-R does not contain the allegations that the respondent Judge would want to appear therein. The Court also noted that while the order to amend was issued in Spec. Proc. No. 24-R and could not ordinarily bind the petitioners who were not parties therein, the petitioners voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the probate court when they filed an Omnibus Motion in Civil Case No. 231-R praying for leave to amend their complaint in accordance with the order of 30 October 1975, and they could not belatedly adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge.

• Probate Court Jurisdiction Over Ownership Questions — When questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate of a deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased, but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be determined in the courts of administrative proceedings. The Court of First Instance, acting as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a court of first instance. In this case, the probate court's determination of ownership of Lot E was not final or ultimate and could not justify the order to amend the complaint.
• Voluntary Submission to Jurisdiction — A party who voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of a court cannot belatedly adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking that jurisdiction. The petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion in Civil Case No. 231-R praying for leave to amend their complaint in accordance with the probate court's order, thereby voluntarily submitting themselves to the probate court's jurisdiction.

• "It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction, sanctioned and reiterated in a long line of decisions, that 'when questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate of a deceased person, but claimed by some other person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased, but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be determined in the courts of administrative proceedings. The Court of First Instance, acting, as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a court of first instance.'" — This passage states the controlling doctrine on probate court jurisdiction over ownership questions and is the ratio decidendi for the Court's ruling that the probate court's determination of ownership of Lot E was not final.
• "The findings of the respondent Judge as to the ownership of Lot E after the hearing conducted in Spec. Proc. No. 24-R do not justify the order to amend the complaint since the determination of the ownership of the said lot by the respondent Judge presiding over a court exercising probate jurisdiction is not final or ultimate in nature and is without prejudice to the right of an interested party to raise the question of ownership in a proper action." — This passage explains why the probate court's ownership determination could not support the dismissal of the petitioners' complaint.
• "Besides, the order to amend the complaint is vague and hazy and does not specify what the amendments should be or how the complaint should be amended so that the petitioners should not be faulted if the amended complaint subsequently filed by them in Civil Case No. 231-R does not contain the allegations that the respondent Judge would want to appear therein." — This passage states the Court's finding that the order to amend was vague, providing an independent ground for setting aside the dismissal.

• Tjam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 20 — Cited for the principle that a party who voluntarily submits to a court's jurisdiction cannot later attack that jurisdiction; applied to the petitioners' filing of the Omnibus Motion.
• Martir de Guanzon vs. Jalandoni, 93 Phil. 1089 — Cited for the rule that a probate court's determination of ownership is not final or ultimate and is without prejudice to the right of an interested party to raise the question of ownership in a proper action.
• Ongsingco vs. Tan, 97 Phil. 330, 334-335 — Cited for the well-settled rule that questions of ownership of property claimed by title adverse to the decedent and his estate cannot be determined in probate proceedings but must be submitted to the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction.

N/A — The decision does not cite specific constitutional provisions, statutes, codal articles, or procedural rules.

Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the decision.