Jardeleza vs. Spouses Jardeleza, et al.

An action for reconveyance over conjugal property survives the death of a spouse and must be maintained independently of intestate proceedings; the probate court’s determination of ownership is merely provisional, and a dismissal of the complaint is ineffective without the express conformity of the surviving spouse as an indispensable party.

Gilda Jardeleza and Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. were spouses whose conjugal lands were the subject of the dispute. Respondents Spouses Melecio and Elizabeth Jardeleza, JMB Traders, Inc., and Teodoro Jardeleza were impleaded; Melecio was also an heir of Ernesto, and Teodoro later served as administrator of Ernesto’s estate. The controversy implicated the boundary between an ordinary civil action for reconveyance and the jurisdiction of intestate proceedings over the decedent’s estate.

On March 7, 1997, Spouses Gilda Jardeleza and Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. commenced Civil Case No. 23499 in the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City against Spouses Melecio and Elizabeth Jardeleza, JMB Traders, Inc., and Teodoro Jardeleza, respecting several parcels of their conjugal lands. The case was raffled to Branch 33 and sought reconveyance and damages.

On January 13, 2004, while Civil Case No. 23499 was pending, Ernesto died. Administration proceedings, Special Proceedings No. 04-7705, were commenced in the RTC and assigned to Branch 38, and Teodoro was appointed as administrator of the estate. The other heirs questioned the appointment in the Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, Teodoro, in his capacity as administrator, filed a motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 23499 on December 15, 2004. He asserted that because Melecio, one of the defendants, was also an heir of Ernesto, the properties subject of the reconveyance should be considered “advances in the inheritance,” and the claim for reconveyance should be heard in Special Proceedings No. 04-7705 by Branch 38.

Branch 33 issued an order dated January 31, 2005 granting the motion to dismiss. The order stated that the motion to dismiss dated December 15, 2004 carried the signature of all parties and their respective counsels, and it granted the dismissal of the complaint and the counterclaims. Gilda sought reconsideration, arguing that she had a personal cause of action of her own distinct from that of Ernesto; that she neither signed nor consented to the dismissal of Civil Case No. 23499; and that Teodoro should have first sought the approval of Branch 38 as the intestate court because the estate could potentially recover properties belonging to it. On April 7, 2005, Branch 33 denied her motion for reconsideration.

Gilda directly appealed the adverse rulings. During the proceedings, Gilda also passed away, and her heirs substituted her. The comments of the heirs of Gilda and Ernesto revealed that they no longer objected to the overturning of the dismissal. Teodoro prayed that the dismissal be undone. Rolando Jardeleza expressed support for the petition to have the dismissal reversed so that the properties allegedly donated to the respondents would be brought back to the estate of his late parents and included in its final settlement. Glenda Jardeleza manifested her intention to substitute the late Gilda and prayed that Civil Case No. 23499 be remanded to Branch 33 for further proceedings.

• Personal Cause of Action: Gilda argued that she had a personal cause of action of her own distinct from that of Ernesto.
• Lack of Conformity to Dismissal: Gilda maintained that she neither signed nor consented to the dismissal of Civil Case No. 23499.
• Approval of Intestate Court: Gilda argued that Teodoro should have first sought the approval of Branch 38 as the intestate court because the estate could potentially recover properties belonging to it.
• Gross Error on Appeal: Gilda contended that the dismissal was grossly erroneous under the law and pertinent jurisprudence.
• Survival of Action: Gilda posited that the action for reconveyance survived the intervening death of Ernesto as co-plaintiff and should be maintained independently of Special Proceedings No. 04-7705.

• Advances in Inheritance / Proper Forum: Teodoro, in his capacity as administrator, moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 23499 on the ground that because Melecio was also an heir of Ernesto, the properties subject of the reconveyance should be considered “advances in the inheritance” and the claim should be heard in Special Proceedings No. 04-7705 by Branch 38.
• Prayer to Undo Dismissal: In his comment, Teodoro prayed that the dismissal be undone.

• Conformity to Dismissal: Whether Branch 33 erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 23499 on the basis of a motion to dismiss that allegedly bore the signatures of all parties and counsel when only Teodoro conformed and Gilda did not.
• Survival of Action: Whether the action for reconveyance survived the death of Ernesto and should be maintained independently of Special Proceedings No. 04-7705.
• Probate Court Jurisdiction: Whether the probate court’s jurisdiction extends to determining ownership of properties claimed to belong to the estate, or whether such determination is merely provisional.
• Effect of Heirs’ United Position: Whether the dismissal should be undone considering that all the heirs of Gilda and Ernesto united to seek its reversal and a trial on the merits.

• Conformity to Dismissal: Yes. The dismissal was ineffectual because the motion carried only Teodoro’s conformity, not Gilda’s, whose express conformity was indispensable over conjugal property.
• Survival of Action: Yes. The reconveyance action survived Ernesto’s death because the wrong principally affected property and property rights.
• Probate Court Jurisdiction: No. The probate court’s jurisdiction does not extend to a final determination of ownership; any determination is provisional and yields to a separate action.
• Effect of Heirs’ United Position: Yes. With all heirs seeking reversal, the dismissal should be undone to allow a trial on the merits.

• Conformity to Dismissal: Branch 33 based its dismissal on the stated fact that the motion to dismiss filed by Teodoro, in his capacity as administrator, bore the signatures of all the parties and their respective counsel. The records showed, however, that the motion carried only the conformity of Teodoro. Teodoro’s conformity to the dismissal stood only for the intestate estate of Ernesto and did not bind Gilda. Without Gilda’s express conformity, the dismissal of Civil Case No. 23499 was ineffectual. Gilda’s express conformity was not merely necessary but indispensable because the properties sought to be reconveyed pertained to the conjugal partnership of Gilda and Ernesto.
• Survival of Action: Gilda correctly posited that the action for reconveyance, which survived the intervening death of Ernesto as co-plaintiff, should be maintained independently of Special Proceedings No. 04-7705. Whether an action survives depends on its nature. In a cause of action that survives, the wrong complained of primarily and principally affects property and property rights, with injuries to the person being merely incidental; in a cause of action that does not survive, the injury complained of is to the person, with property and rights of property affected being incidental. This rule applies regardless of whether the plaintiff or the defendant dies, or whether the case is in the trial or appellate courts. Civil Case No. 23499 therefore survived the death of Ernesto.
• Probate Court Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of the RTC as a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of a will of a deceased person, and does not extend to the determination of a question of ownership that arises during the proceedings. This is true whether or not the property is alleged to belong to the estate, unless the claimants to the property are all heirs of the deceased and they agree to submit the question for determination by the probate or administration court and the interests of third parties are not prejudiced; or unless the purpose is to determine whether or not certain properties should be included in the inventory, in which case the probate or administration court may decide prima facie the ownership of the property, but such determination is not final and is without prejudice to the right of interested parties to ventilate the question of ownership in a proper action. The determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title by a court of competent jurisdiction. Civil Case No. 23499 had been instituted in 1997 and was pending trial before Branch 33 prior to the bringing of the probate proceedings in 2004. In dismissing Civil Case No. 23499, Branch 33 shirked from its responsibility to decide the issue of ownership and to let the probate court decide the same. Branch 33 thereby did not consider that any decision that Branch 38 as a probate court would render on the title and on whether or not property should be included or excluded from the inventory of the assets of the estate would at best be merely provisional in character, and would yield to a final determination in a separate action.
• Effect of Heirs’ United Position: The comments of the heirs of Gilda, who had meanwhile also passed away, and Ernesto revealed that they had no longer any objection to the overturning of the dismissal. Teodoro prayed that the dismissal be undone. Rolando Jardeleza expressed support for the petition of Gilda to have the dismissal reversed so that the properties allegedly donated to the respondents would be brought back to the estate of his late parents and be included in its final settlement. Glenda Jardeleza manifested her intention to substitute the late Gilda, her mother, and prayed that Civil Case No. 23499 be remanded to Branch 33 for further proceedings. With all the heirs of Gilda and Ernesto having thus united to seek the undoing of the dismissal in order to have a trial on the merits on the question of ownership of the affected properties, the dismissal should now be undone.

• Survival of Civil Actions — A cause of action survives the death of a party if the wrong complained of primarily and principally affects property and property rights, with injuries to the person being merely incidental. Conversely, a cause of action does not survive if the injury complained of is to the person, with property and rights of property affected being incidental. The rule applies regardless of whether the plaintiff or defendant dies, or whether the case is in the trial or appellate courts. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the reconveyance action survived Ernesto’s death and should be maintained independently of the intestate proceedings.
• Limited Jurisdiction of Probate Court over Ownership — The jurisdiction of the RTC as a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of a will of a deceased person, and does not extend to the determination of a question of ownership that arises during the proceedings. This is true whether or not the property is alleged to belong to the estate, unless the claimants are all heirs of the deceased and they agree to submit the question to the probate or administration court without prejudice to third parties; or unless the purpose is to determine whether certain properties should be included in the inventory, in which case the probate or administration court may decide prima facie ownership, but such determination is not final and is without prejudice to a separate action. The Court applied this doctrine in ruling that Branch 33 should not have deferred to Branch 38, whose determination of title and inventory would be merely provisional and would yield to a final determination in a separate action.
• Indispensable Conformity of Spouses to Dismissal of Action over Conjugal Property — A dismissal of a complaint involving conjugal property requires the express conformity of the surviving spouse as an indispensable party. The conformity of an administrator binds only the intestate estate and does not bind the surviving spouse without her express consent. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 23499 was ineffectual because the motion to dismiss carried only Teodoro’s conformity and not Gilda’s, whose consent was indispensable over the conjugal properties.

• "In a cause of action that survives, the wrong complained of primarily and principally affects property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental; in a cause of action that does not survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights of property affected being incidental." — This passage states the canonical test for determining whether a civil action survives the death of a party, which the Court applied to hold that the reconveyance action survived Ernesto’s death.
• "the jurisdiction of the RT C as a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of a will of a deceased person, and does not extend t the determination of a question of ownership that arises during the proceedings." — This passage defines the limited jurisdiction of a probate court over questions of ownership, which the Court used to reject Branch 33’s deference to the intestate court.
• "Otherwise put, the determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title by a court of competent jurisdiction." — This passage clarifies that any probate court determination of ownership is provisional and yields to a separate action for title, a key rationale for reinstating the reconveyance case.
• "Teodoro’s conformity to the dismissal would stand only for the intestate estate of Ernesto, and did not bind Gilda without whose express conformity the dismissal of Civil Case No. 23499 was ineffectual." — This passage states the Court’s holding that the administrator’s conformity did not bind the surviving spouse and that Gilda’s express conformity was indispensable over conjugal property.

• Bonilla vs. Barcena, No. L-41715, June 18, 1976, 71 SCRA 491, 495, 496 — Cited for the rule that whether an action survives depends on its nature, distinguishing actions that principally affect property or property rights from those that principally affect the person.
• Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108947, September 29, 1997, 279 SCRA 647, 672 — Cited for the limited jurisdiction of a probate court, which does not extend to the determination of ownership arising during proceedings.
• Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 42108, December 29, 1989, 180 SCRA 635, 647-648 — Cited together with Sanchez for the same rule on the probate court’s limited jurisdiction over ownership.
• Baybayan vs. Aquino, No. L-42678, April 9, 1987, 149 SCRA 186, 192 — Cited for the rule that a probate court’s determination of ownership is provisional and subject to a final decision in a separate action.
• Pastor, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-56340, June 24, 1983, 122 SCRA 885, 895 — Cited with Baybayan for the provisional character of the probate court’s determination of title.
• Cunanan vs. Amparo, G.R. No. L-1313, 80 Phil. 227, 232 (1948) — Cited for the exception allowing the probate court to determine ownership when the claimants are all heirs and third-party interests are not prejudiced.
• Alvarez vs. Espiritu, L-18833, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 892, 898-899 — Cited for the inventory exception, under which the probate court may decide prima facie ownership but such determination is not final and is without prejudice to a separate action.

• Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitutions — Cited in the Chief Justice’s certification that the conclusions in the Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. It was not a substantive basis for the ruling on the dismissal, survival of action, or probate jurisdiction.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Jose Portugal Perez, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.