THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127920. August 9, 2005]

EMILIO B. PACIOLES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR AND HEIR OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF MIGUELITA CHINGPACIOLES, petitioner, vs. MIGUELA CHUATOCOCHING, respondent. DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Oftentimes death brings peace only to the person who dies but not to the people he leaves behind. For in death, a persons estate remains, providing a fertile ground for discords that break the familial bonds. Before us is another case that illustrates such reality. Here, a husband and a mother of the deceased are locked in an acrimonious dispute over the estate of their loved one. This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Emilio B. Pacioles, Jr., herein petitioner, against Miguela Chuatoco-Ching, herein respondent, assailing the Court of Appeals Decision[1] dated September 25, 1996 and Resolution[2] dated January 27, 1997 in CA-G.R. SP No. 41571.[3] The Appellate Court affirmed the Order dated January 17, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 99, Quezon City denyingpetitioners motion for partition and distribution of the estate of his wife, Miguelita Ching-Pacioles; and his motion for reconsideration. The facts are undisputed. On March 13, 1992, Miguelita died intestate, leaving real properties with an estimated value of P10.5 million, stock investments worthP518,783.00, bank deposits amounting to P6.54 million, and interests in certain businesses. She was survived by her husband, petitioner herein, and their two minor children. Consequently, on August 20, 1992, petitioner filed with the RTC a verified petition[4] for the settlement of Miguelitas estate. He prayed that(a) letters of administration be issued in his name, and (b) that the net residue of the estate be divided among the compulsory heirs. Miguelitas mother, Miguela Chuatoco-Ching, herein respondent, filed an opposition, specifically to petitioners prayer for the issuance of letters of administration on the grounds that (a) petitioner is incompetent and unfit to exercise the duties of an administrator; and (b) the bulk of Miguelitas estate is composed of paraphernal properties. Respondent prayed that the letters of administration be

issued to her instead.[5]Afterwards, she also filed a motion for her appointment as special administratrix.[6] Petitioner moved to strike out respondents opposition, alleging that the latter has no direct and material interest in the estate, she not being a compulsory heir, and that he, being the surviving spouse, has the preferential right to be appointed as administrator under the law.[7] Respondent countered that she has direct and material interest in the estate because she gave half of her inherited properties to Miguelita on condition that both of them would undertake whatever business endeavor they decided to, in the capacity of business partners.[8] In her omnibus motion[9] dated April 23, 1993, respondent nominated her son Emmanuel Ching to act as special administrator. On April 20, 1994, the intestate court issued an order appointing petitioner and Emmanuel as joint regular administrators of the estate. [10]Both were issued letters of administration after taking their oath and posting the requisite bond. Consequently, Notice to Creditors was published in the issues of the Manila Standard on September 12, 19, and 26, 1994. However, no claims were filed against the estate within the period set by the Revised Rules of Court. Thereafter, petitioner submitted to the intestate court an inventory of Miguelitas estate.[11] Emmanuel did not submit an inventory. On May 17, 1995, the intestate court declared petitioner and his two minor children as the only compulsory heirs of Miguelita.[12] On July 21, 1995, petitioner filed with the intestate court an omnibus motion[13] praying, among others, that an Order be issued directing the: 1) payment of estate taxes; 2) partition and distribution of the estate among the declared heirs; and 3) payment of attorneys fees. Respondent opposed petitioners motion on the ground that the partition and distribution of the estate is premature and precipitate, considering that there is yet no determination whether the properties specified in the inventory are conjugal, paraphernal or owned in a joint venture.[14] Respondent claimed that she owns the bulk of Miguelitas estate as an heir and co-owner. Thus, she prayed that a hearing be scheduled. On January 17, 1996, the intestate court allowed the payment of the estate taxes and attorneys fees but denied petitioners prayer for partition and distribution of the estate, holding that it is indeed premature. The intestate court ratiocinated as follows:

On the partition and distribution of the deceaseds properties, among the declared heirs, the Court finds the prayer of petitioner in this regard to be premature. Thus, a hearing on oppositors claim as indicated in her opposition to the instant petition is necessary to determine whether the properties listed in the amended complaint filed by petitioner are entirely conjugal or the paraphernal properties of the

deceased, or a co-ownership between the oppositor and the petitioner in their partnership venture.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in the Resolution dated May 7, 1996. Forthwith, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the intestate courts Order dated January 17, 1996 and Resolution dated May 7, 1996 which denied petitioners prayer for partition and distribution of the estate for being premature, indicating that it (intestate court) will first resolve respondents claim of ownership. The Appellate Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, holding that in issuing the challenged Order and Resolution, the intestate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Appellate Court ruled:

Regarding the second issue raised, respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in entertaining private respondents unsupported claim of ownership against the estate. In fact, there is no indication that the probate court has already made a finding of title or ownership. It is inevitable that in probate proceedings, questions of collation or of advancement are involved for these are matters which can be passed upon in the course of the proceedings. The probate court in exercising its prerogative to schedule a hearing, to inquire into the propriety of private respondents claim, is being extremely cautious in determining the composition of the estate. This act is not tainted with an iota of grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but it was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari anchored on the following assignments of error:
I

RESPONDENT COURTS DECISION WHICH AFFIRMS THE INTESTATE COURTS ORDER IS A GRAVE ERROR FOR BEING CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE AND POLICY OF THE LAW THAT ESTATE PROCEEDINGS MUST BE SETTLED EXPEDITIOUSLY.
II

RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN SUSTAINING THE INTESTATE COURTS ORDER TO CONDUCT HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE, AS SAID FUNCTION IS OUTSIDE AND BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTESTATE COURT.
III

RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE INTESTATE COURTS ORDER AND RESOLUTION NOTWITHSTANDING THAT RESPONDENT CHINGS OWNERSHIP CLAIMS ARE CONFLICTING, FRIVOLOUS AND BASELESS.
The fundamental issue for our resolution is: May a trial court, acting as an intestate court, hear and pass upon questions of ownership involving properties claimed to be part of the decedents estate? The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court either as an intestate or a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of will of deceased persons but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings.[15] The patent rationale for this rule is that such court exercises special and limited jurisdiction.[16] A well-recognized deviation to the rule is the principle that an intestate or a probate court may hear and pass upon questions of ownership when its purpose is to determine whether or not a property should be included in the inventory. In such situations the adjudication is merely incidental and provisional. Thus, in Pastor, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals,[17] we held:

x x x As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title.
The Court of Appeals relied heavily on the above principle in sustaining the jurisdiction of the intestate court to conduct a hearing on respondents claim. Such reliance is misplaced. Under the said principle, the key consideration is that the purpose of the intestate or probate court in hearing and passing upon questions of ownership is merely to determine whether or not a property should be included in the inventory. The facts of this case show that such was not the purpose of the intestate court. First, the inventory was not disputed. In fact, in her Manifestation and Opposition[18] dated September 18, 1995, respondent expressly adopted the inventory prepared by petitioner, thus:

6. She adopts the inventory submitted by the petitioner in his Amended Compliance dated October 6, 1994, and filed only on November 4, 1994 not October 5, 1995 as erroneously asserted in Par. 12 of the Omnibus Motion. Oppositor, however, takes exception to the low valuation placed on the real estate properties and reserves her right to submit a more accurate and realistic pricing on each.

Respondent could have opposed petitioners inventory and sought the exclusion of the specific properties which she believed or considered to be hers. But instead of doing so, she expressly adopted the inventory, taking exception only to the low valuation placed on the real estate properties. And second, Emmanuel, respondents son and representative in the settlement of Miguelitas estate, did not submit his own inventory. His mandate, as co-administrator, is to submit within three (3) months after his appointment a true inventory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of the deceased which have come into his possession or knowledge.[19] He could have submitted an inventory, excluding therefrom those properties which respondent considered to be hers. The fact that he did not endeavor to submit one shows that he acquiesced with petitioners inventory. Obviously, respondents purpose here was not to obtain from the intestate court a ruling of what properties should or should not be included in the inventory. She wanted something else, i.e., to secure from the intestate court a final determination of her claim of ownership over properties comprising the bulk of Miguelitas estate . The intestate court went along with respondent on this point as evident in its Resolution[20] dated May 7, 1996, thus:

On petitioners motion for partition and distribution of the estate of the late Miguelita Ching Pacioles, it is believed that since oppositor had interposed a claim against the subject estate, the distribution thereof in favor of the heirs could not possibly be implemented as there is still a need for appropriate proceedings to determine the propriety of oppositors claim. It must be mentioned that if it is true that oppositor owns the bulk of the properties, which she allegedly placed/registered in the name of the deceased for convenience, Oppositor, therefore, has a material and direct interest in the estate and hence, should be given her day in Court.
It is apparent from the foregoing Resolution that the purpose of the hearing set by the intestate court was actually to determine the propriety of oppositors (respondents) claim. According to the intestate court, if it is true that the oppositor (respondent) owns the bulk of (Miguelitas) properties, then it means that she has a material and direct interest in the estate and, hence, she should be given her day in court. The intended day in court or hearing is geared towards resolving the propriety of respondents contention that she is the true owner of the bulk of Miguelitas estate. Surely, we cannot be deluded by respondents ingenious attempt to secure a proceeding for the purpose of resolving her blanket claim against Miguelitas estate. Although, she made it appear that her only intent was to determine the accuracy of petitioners inventory, however, a close review of the facts and the pleadings reveals her real intention. Clearly, the RTC, acting as an intestate court, had overstepped its jurisdiction. Its proper course should have been to maintain a hands-off stance on the matter. It is wellsettled in this jurisdiction, sanctioned and reiterated in a long line of decisions, that

when a question arises as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate of the 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 question cannot be determined in the course of an intestate or probate proceedings. The intestate or probate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a regional trial court.[21] Jurisprudence teaches us 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 claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator. 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 a final determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate court cannot do so.
[22]

Hence, respondents recourse is to file a separate action with a court of general jurisdiction. The intestate court is not the appropriate forum for the resolution of her adverse claim of ownership over properties ostensibly belonging to Miguelita's estate. Now, even assuming that the intestate court merely intended to make a provisional or prima facie determination of the issue of ownership, still respondents claim cannot prosper. It bears stressing that the bulk of Miguelitas estate, as stated in petitioners inventory, comprises real estates covered by the Torrens System which are registered either in the name of Miguelita alone or with petitioner. As such, they are considered the owners of the properties until their title is nullified or modified in an appropriate ordinary action. We find this Courts pronouncement in Bolisay vs. Alcid[23] relevant, thus:

It does not matter that respondent-administratrix has evidence purporting to support her claim of ownership, for, on the other hand, petitioners have a Torrens title in their favor, which under the law is endowed with incontestability until after it has been set aside in the manner indicated in the law itself, which, of course, does not include, bringing up the matter as a mere incident in special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons. x x x x x x In regard to such incident of inclusion or exclusion, We hold that if a property covered by Torrens Title is involved, the presumptive conclusiveness of such title should be given due weight, and in the absence of strong compelling evidence to the contrary, the holder thereof should be considered as the owner of the property in controversy until his title is nullified or modified in an appropriate ordinary

action, particularly, when as in the case at bar, possession of the property itself is in the persons named in the title. x x x
Corrolarily, P.D. 1529, otherwise known as, The Property Registration Decree, proscribes collateral attack against Torrens Title, hence:

Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
Significantly, a perusal of the records reveals that respondent failed to present convincing evidence to bolster her bare assertion of ownership. We quote her testimony, thus:
Q: I now direct your attention to paragraph (5) appearing on page 1 of this sworn statement of yours which I quote: In accordance with the Chinese tradition and culture in the distribution of properties to the legal heirs, we decided to give only a token to our daughter Miguelita and leave the rest to our only son Emmanuel, with the undertaking that being the son he will take full responsibility of the rest of the family despite his marriage. Madame witness, do you recall having stated that in your sworn statement? A: Q A: Yes sir, but it was not carried out. What was actually given to your daughter Miguelita is only a token, is that right? Not a token, sir, but one half of the share of the estate was given to Lita and the other half was given to Emmanuel.

Q: What went to Emmanuel was also , is that right? A: Yes, sir.

Q: What makes up the one half share of Lita, if you recall? A: What was given to her were all checks, sir, but I cannot remember any more the amount.

x x x

x x x

Q: Summing up your testimony, Madame, you cannot itemize the one half share of the estate of Miguelita, is that right? A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was there any document covering this partition of the estate among you, Emmanuel and Miguelita with respect to the estate of your late husband? A: If I only knew that this will happen Wala po.[24]

Q: Samakatuwid po ay walang dokumento? A:

She further testified as follows:

Q: Among the properties listed like the various parcels of land, stocks, investments, bank accounts and deposits both here and abroad, interests and participation in IFS Pharmaceuticals and Medical Supplies, Inc. and various motor vehicles, per your pleasure, Madam Witness, how should these properties be partitioned or what should be done with these properties? According to you earlier, you are agreeable for the partition of the said properties with Emil on a 50-50 basis, is that right? A: Q Kung ano po ang sa akin, iyon ang dapat na bumalik sa akin, sir. Halimbawa ay ano po iyon? Real estate properties, parcels of land located in Pag-Asa, in Silangan, in San Lazaro, in Sta. Cruz, in San Francisco del Monte and shares of stock. Alinsunod sa inyo, paano po ang dapat na partihan o hatian ninyo ni Emil? Kung ano ang sa akin

A:

x x x
Q A:

x x x

Ang tanong ko po sa inyo ay ganito, ito po ba ang inyong iminungkahi kay Emil? Ito po ba ang inyong paghahatian or hindi? Iyo akin talaga na hindi nila pinaghirapan, sir.[25]

Unfortunately, respondent could not even specify which of the properties listed in petitioners inventory belong to her. Neither could she present any document to prove her claim of ownership. The consistently changing basis of her claim did nothing to improve her posture. Initially, she insisted that the bulk of Miguelitas estate is composed of paraphernal properties.[26] Sensing that such assertion could not strengthen her claim of ownership, she opted to change her submission and declare that she and Miguelita were business partners and that she gave to the latter most of her properties to be used in a joint business venture.[27] Respondent must have realized early on that if the properties listed in petitioners inventory are paraphernal, then Miguelita had the absolute title and ownership over them and upon her death, such properties would be vested to her compulsory heirs, petitioner herein and their two minor children.[28] At any rate, we must stress that our pronouncements herein cannot diminish or deprive respondent of whatever rights or properties she believes or considers to be rightfully hers. We reiterate that the question of ownership of properties alleged to be part of the estate must be submitted to the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction.[29] WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41571 are hereby REVERSED. SO ORDERED. Panganiban, (Chairman), Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concur. Corona, J., on leave.