Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 122 views

    Ortega V CA

    Uploaded by

    Miguel Castriciones
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Joaquin Ortega between two alleged wives - Emilia Ybanez and Calixta Yap. After Joaquin's death in 1948, Emilia initiated intestate proceedings and was appointed administratrix. In 1972, Calixta filed a complaint claiming she, not Emilia, was Joaquin's legal wife and that properties in the estate actually belonged to her. The trial court judge ruled in Calixta's favor. However, the Supreme Court found the judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reopening the issue of heirs, which had already been decided in the probate case. The ownership issue was properly filed separately, so the case was remanded for a trial on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ortega V CA

    Uploaded by

    Miguel Castriciones
    122 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Joaquin Ortega between two alleged wives - Emilia Ybanez and Calixta Yap. After Joaquin's death in 1948, Emilia initiated intestate proceedings and was appointed administratrix. In 1972, Calixta filed a complaint claiming she, not Emilia, was Joaquin's legal wife and that properties in the estate actually belonged to her. The trial court judge ruled in Calixta's favor. However, the Supreme Court found the judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reopening the issue of heirs, which had already been decided in the probate case. The ownership issue was properly filed separately, so the case was remanded for a trial on

    Original Description:

    Special Proceedings

    Original Title

    Ortega v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Joaquin Ortega between two alleged wives - Emilia Ybanez and Calixta Yap. After Joaquin's death in 1948, Emilia initiated intestate proceedings and was appointed administratrix. In 1972, Calixta filed a complaint claiming she, not Emilia, was Joaquin's legal wife and that properties in the estate actually belonged to her. The trial court judge ruled in Calixta's favor. However, the Supreme Court found the judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reopening the issue of heirs, which had already been decided in the probate case. The ownership issue was properly filed separately, so the case was remanded for a trial on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    122 views1 page

    Ortega V CA

    Uploaded by

    Miguel Castriciones
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Joaquin Ortega between two alleged wives - Emilia Ybanez and Calixta Yap. After Joaquin's death in 1948, Emilia initiated intestate proceedings and was appointed administratrix. In 1972, Calixta filed a complaint claiming she, not Emilia, was Joaquin's legal wife and that properties in the estate actually belonged to her. The trial court judge ruled in Calixta's favor. However, the Supreme Court found the judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reopening the issue of heirs, which had already been decided in the probate case. The ownership issue was properly filed separately, so the case was remanded for a trial on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SECOND DIVISION GR NO. L-43155, August 14, 1987.

    Luisa Ortega, Nieves Y. Ortega, Maria Marizal Polancos (rep by father and nat. guardian Mamerto
    Polancos), Juaquin Ortega Jr. (rep by cousin Maria Louisa Seville as guardian ad litem) vs.
    Court of Appeals, Judge Numeriano Estenzo, CAlixta Yap, Adelaida Ortega, Conchita Ortega,
    Maximo Jose Ortega, Jesus ortega, Carmen Ortega Lim, Amparo Ortega Longalong, and Mercedes
    Ortega Bacalso
    FACTS, Paras:
    May 22, 1948 - Joaquin Ortega died intestate
    January 3, 1949 - "surviving spouse," Emilia Ybanez initiaed an intestate proceeding (Sp. Pro. No 441-R)
    before CFI Cebu, Branch II. Emilia was appointed as administratrix. Letters of admin issued on
    Feb. 22, 1949 - Letters of admin issued to Emilia. Joaquin was also survived by daughters with
    Emilia, namely, Luisa, Elena, Nieves, Eufemia, and Agueda, all petitioners.
    March 17, 1949 - Calixta Yap, filed a MR of the order on the ground that Joaquin's children by her are the
    forced heirs; that JOaquin was never married to Emilia. Denied.
    May 29, 1949 - Emilia presented an inventory and appraisal of the estate. Approved.
    June 30, 1954 - Agueda, the then admin, filed another inventory. Approved.
    April 17, 1959 - children of Calixta filed for motion for intervention, praying to be declared heirs of Joaquin.
    June 25, 1959 - inventory filed by Eufemia, of Emilia, filed another inventory. Approved
    November 14, 1962 - children of Calixt filed motion to dismiss their motion to be declared as heirs.
    November 24, 1962 - Judge Amador Gomez of CFI Cebu, Branch II (Sp. Pro. No 441-R) declared Emilia
    and daughters as legal heirs.
    December 6, 1972 - CAlixta Yap and children filed a complaint for quieting of title, declaration of nullity of
    sale, annulment of tax declaration, damages and other reliefs. Civil Case No. 1184-0, presided by Judge
    Estenzo. CAlixta alleged to be the owner of a parcel of land in Sta. Cruz, Isabel Leyte, with an area of
    174, 496 sq.m; that on Oct. 20, 1927 while she was living with Joaquin, she and her grandfather Froilan
    maurillo executed a simulated deed of sale in favor of Joaquin; that she and her 8 children had it in
    continued possession.
    Feb. 12, 1973 - Calixta's complaint amended to show that she was married to Joaqun in 1927 before the
    Justice of the Peace Zamora of Merida, Leyte
    Feb. 19, 1973 - complaint again amended, additions of other properties claimed to be conjugal between
    Calixta and Joaquin: the original subject parcel of land, 4 other lots, and the other portions previously
    adjudicated to Emilia. Amendments allowed.
    Emilia's answer: that she was married to Joaquin by Justice of the Peace of Hilongos, Leyte.
    February 24, 1975 - order issued by Judge Estenzo in favor of Calixta over claim of Emilia on a marriage
    that could not be substantiated by a document destroyed by war.
    August 11, 1975 petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA (CA-GR No. SP-04494-R) on the
    ground that Judge Estenzo converted the proceedings to an action for declaration of the legal wife,
    legitimate children, and legal heirs of Joaquin. Dismissed. Hence, this petition for certiorari before the SC.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the civil action instituted by Calixta and the subsequent orders of Judge Estenzo
    were in order
    RATIO: The probate court (whether testate or intestate) cannot adjudicate title to properties claimed to be
    part of the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the probate 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 determinationof the conflicting claims of title because the probate court cannot do so.
    HELD: Calixta properly filed the separate action to resolve the issue of ownership as this matter is beyond
    the jurisdiction of the probate court. However, declaration of heirs by Judge Estenzo is void, said matter
    having been resolved with finality by the probate court. The case is remanded to the trial court for a full
    hearing on the question of ownership of the lot in Isabel, Leyte.

    You might also like