Ongsingco vs. Tan

A probate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate questions of ownership of property claimed by a third party adversely to the estate; such questions must be resolved in an ordinary civil action, and no court may interfere by injunction with the judgments or processes of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction.

Tasiana Ongsingco was the second wife and judicial guardian of Francisco de Borja, who had been declared incompetent by the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Francisco de Borja was the surviving spouse of Josefa Tangco, whose estate was under settlement in a separate special proceeding before the same court. Jose de Borja, Francisco's son by Josefa Tangco, was appointed administrator of Josefa Tangco's estate. The disputed two parcels of land in Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija were claimed by Ongsingco as Francisco de Borja's exclusive inheritance from his late father Marcelo de Borja, while Jose de Borja, as estate administrator, contended they were not the lots adjudicated to Francisco by the commissioners on partition.

Tasiana Ongsingco was the second wife and judicial guardian of Francisco de Borja, who had been declared incompetent by the Court of First Instance of Rizal on October 27, 1953. Francisco de Borja was the surviving spouse of Josefa Tangco, whose estate was being settled in Special Proceedings No. 7866 before the same court. Jose de Borja, Francisco's son by Josefa Tangco, was appointed administrator of Josefa Tangco's estate on June 29, 1953. Two parcels of land situated in Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija, were claimed by Ongsingco as part of the separate property of Francisco de Borja, having been inherited from his late father Marcelo de Borja.

Upon her appointment as guardian, Ongsingco took possession of the two parcels and commenced threshing the palay crop standing thereon for her ward's benefit. On January 16, 1954, Jose de Borja, as administrator of the Tangco estate, filed a motion in the probate proceedings praying that Ongsingco be restrained from threshing the palay until the ownership of the lands had been determined. Ongsingco opposed the motion, challenging the probate court's jurisdiction to pass upon the question of ownership. The parties had made several attempts to agree on the identity of the disputed lots but failed.

Because of the pressing need to thresh the standing crop and the inability to reach agreement on the identity of the lands, Ongsingco filed an action on January 21, 1954 in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Civil Case No. 1350) to determine once and for all the title and ownership of the lands and to restrain Jose de Borja from interfering with the harvesting and threshing. The CFI Nueva Ecija granted a preliminary injunction upon the filing of a ₱5,000 bond. Jose de Borja's urgent petition to dismiss the action and dissolve the injunction was denied on January 25, 1954.

Notwithstanding the pendency of the Nueva Ecija action and the injunction issued therein, the respondent court, acting as probate court, issued an order on January 29, 1954 directing Ongsingco not to meddle in the threshing of the palay on the lands and ordering the administrator and guardian to find from among Francisco de Borja's properties two parcels matching those adjudicated to him by the Commissioners on Partition. Ongsingco's motion for reconsideration was denied, and a second order was issued on February 18, 1954. These orders not only went into the issue of ownership but also effectively nullified the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CFI of Nueva Ecija.

• Probate Court Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the probate court had no jurisdiction to determine the question of ownership of the disputed lands, and that such question could only be threshed out in an ordinary action, not in probate proceedings.
• Interference with Coordinate Court: Petitioner contended that respondent court's orders, issued after being apprised of the preliminary injunction from the CFI of Nueva Ecija, had the effect of nullifying and rendering ineffective said writ, which respondent court had no power to do.

• Probate Court Jurisdiction: Whether the respondent court, acting as a probate court, had jurisdiction to determine the dispute involving ownership of two parcels of land that were already the subject of a pending civil action in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
• Injunction Against Coordinate Court: Whether the respondent court could, after being apprised of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CFI of Nueva Ecija, issue an order the effect of which was to nullify and render ineffective said writ.

• Probate Court Jurisdiction: No. The probate court exceeded its jurisdiction in acting upon the ownership question, which must be determined in an ordinary civil action and not in probate proceedings.
• Injunction Against Coordinate Court: No. No court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction.

• Probate Court Jurisdiction: The well-settled rule, sanctioned by a long line of decisions, is that the question of ownership of property should be determined in an ordinary action and not in probate proceedings, whether or not the property is alleged to belong to the estate. When a person claims property not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and the estate, the probate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions; they must be submitted to the court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction. Here, the dispute squarely involved ownership of the two parcels, and that question had already been raised in a pending civil action before the CFI of Nueva Ecija. The Court rejected as immaterial the claim that respondent court merely looked into the identity of the properties, holding that the question of identity is necessarily imbibed in the greater issue of ownership and is interwoven with it such that one can hardly draw a line of demarcation separating one from the other.

• Injunction Against Coordinate Court: It is settled by overwhelming weight of authority that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the relief sought by injunction. Allowing coordinate courts to interfere with each other's judgments or decrees by injunction would lead to confusion and seriously hinder the administration of justice. Since the CFI of Nueva Ecija had already issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining Jose de Borja from interfering with the threshing, the respondent court should not have issued its orders, which effectively nullified that writ.

• Probate Court Jurisdiction Over Ownership — A probate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate questions of ownership of property claimed by a third person adversely to the estate. Such questions must be resolved in an ordinary civil action before the court acting in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, not in testate or intestate proceedings. The rule applies whether or not the property is alleged to belong to the estate. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction in acting upon the ownership dispute already pending before the CFI of Nueva Ecija.

• Non-Interference Among Coordinate Courts — No court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the relief sought by injunction. Allowing such interference would lead to confusion and seriously hinder the administration of justice. The Court applied this doctrine by nullifying the respondent court's orders, which effectively rendered ineffective the preliminary injunction issued by the CFI of Nueva Ecija.

• "the question of ownership of property is one which should be determined in an ordinary action and not in probate proceedings, and this whether or not the property is alleged to belong to the estate" — This passage articulates the canonical formulation of the probate court jurisdiction rule, frequently cited in subsequent Philippine jurisprudence on the limits of probate court authority.

• "When questions arise as to the 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." — This elaboration of the doctrine, drawn from Guzman vs. Anog, specifies the precise scenario in which the probate court's jurisdiction is excluded: when the claim is adverse to the estate rather than derivative of inheritance rights.

• "It is settled by an overwhelming weight of authority that no court has power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decree of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the relief sought by injunction." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the second issue, establishing the principle of non-interference among coordinate courts as a rule of judicial administration.

• Franco vs. O'Brien, 13 Phil. 359 — Cited as authority for the rule that ownership of property should be determined in an ordinary action, not in probate proceedings.
• Pascual vs. Pascual, 73 Phil. 561 — Followed for the proposition that questions as to title to property cannot be passed upon in testate or intestate proceedings.
• Cordova Vda. de Mañalac vs. Ocampo, 73 Phil. 661 — Cited in support of the same rule regarding probate court jurisdiction over title questions.
• Guzman vs. Anog, 37 Phil. 61 — Quoted for the more elaborate formulation of the doctrine: when ownership is claimed by title adverse to the deceased and the estate, the probate court has no jurisdiction and the matter must be submitted to the court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction.
• Cabigao vs. Del Rosario, 44 Phil. 182 — Controlling authority for the principle that no court may interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction.
• Philippine National Bank vs. Javellana, 92 Phil. 525 — Cited in support of the non-interference doctrine among coordinate courts.
• Montesa vs. Manila Cordage Company, 92 Phil. 25 — Cited in support of the non-interference doctrine among coordinate courts.

Bengzon (Acting Chief Justice), Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes (A.), Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes (J.B.L.), JJ., concurred.