Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 982 views

    Natcher Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Victor Lim
    1) Graciano owned land with his wife Graciana that was divided among their 6 children after Graciana's death. Graciano later donated some of his portion to his children and sold the remainder to his new wife Natcher. 2) After Graciano died, his 6 children from his first marriage claimed Natcher obtained the land fraudulently. The RTC ruled the deed of sale was invalid. 3) The CA overturned, finding the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over questions regarding inheritance and property distribution from an estate. The RTC did not have authority to adjudicate issues relating to Graciano's estate.

    Copyright:

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

    Natcher Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Victor Lim
    982 views1 page
    1) Graciano owned land with his wife Graciana that was divided among their 6 children after Graciana's death. Graciano later donated some of his portion to his children and sold the remainder to his new wife Natcher. 2) After Graciano died, his 6 children from his first marriage claimed Natcher obtained the land fraudulently. The RTC ruled the deed of sale was invalid. 3) The CA overturned, finding the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over questions regarding inheritance and property distribution from an estate. The RTC did not have authority to adjudicate issues relating to Graciano's estate.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    1. Natcher vs CA Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Graciano owned land with his wife Graciana that was divided among their 6 children after Graciana's death. Graciano later donated some of his portion to his children and sold the remainder to his new wife Natcher. 2) After Graciano died, his 6 children from his first marriage claimed Natcher obtained the land fraudulently. The RTC ruled the deed of sale was invalid. 3) The CA overturned, finding the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over questions regarding inheritance and property distribution from an estate. The RTC did not have authority to adjudicate issues relating to Graciano's estate.

    Copyright:

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

    Natcher Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Victor Lim
    1) Graciano owned land with his wife Graciana that was divided among their 6 children after Graciana's death. Graciano later donated some of his portion to his children and sold the remainder to his new wife Natcher. 2) After Graciano died, his 6 children from his first marriage claimed Natcher obtained the land fraudulently. The RTC ruled the deed of sale was invalid. 3) The CA overturned, finding the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over questions regarding inheritance and property distribution from an estate. The RTC did not have authority to adjudicate issues relating to Graciano's estate.

    Copyright:

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

    NATCHER VS CA

    Facts: Graciano is married to graciana, they have 6 children. They are the owners of a
    parcel of land with an area of 9,322 SQ in manila. Upon the death of Graciana, Graciano
    together with his 6 children entered into a extrajudicial settlement of the said estate, they
    divided the said property where a new title was given.
    Graciano donated to his children a portion of his interest in the land amounting to 4,949.30
    SQ leaving only 447 SQ registered under his name as covered by a title. Subsequently, his
    remaining lot has also been divided and the other portion was sold to a third person.
    Graciano married Natcher, during their marriage, Graciano sold his remaining land to
    Natcher. Graciano died leaving Natcher and his 6 children as heirs.
    The Children of Graciano filed a complaint against Natcher stating that she employed fraud
    misrepresentation and forgery, aquired the land by making it appear that Graciano executed
    a deed of sale over the said land, in consequence their legitime has been impaired.
    RTC: Deed of sale is prohibited by law
    DOS is not a valid donation
    DOS may however be an extension of advanc inheritance.
    CA: RTC do not have jurisdiction, as the PROBATE COURT has exclusive jurisdiction to make
    a just and
    legal distribution of the estate.
    RTC was trying an ordinary action, hence the acts performed should have been in a
    probate court.
    ISSUE: W/N the RTC, acting as a court of gen. jurisdiction, adjudicate matters relating to the
    settlement of the estate of a deceased person PARTICULARLY ON QUESTIONS AS TO
    ADVANCEMENT OF PROPERTY MADE BY THE DECEDENT TO ANY OF THE HEIRS?
    HELD: THE SC, differentiated Action VS. Special Proceedings. an action for reconveyance
    and annulment of title with damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement
    of the estate of a deceased
    person such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a
    special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application of specific rules as
    provided for in the Rules of Court.
    The matter in this case fall w/in the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court in the exercise
    of its limited jurisdiction.
    Under Sec 2, Rule 90 of ROC, QUESTIONS AS TO ADVANCEMENT MADE OR ALLEGED TO
    HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE DECEASED TO ANY HEIR MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THE
    COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE ESTATE PROCEEDINGS.
    While it may be true that the Rules used the word MAY it is nevertheless clear that it
    contemplates a probate court when it speaks of the court having jurisdiction of the estate
    proceedings.
    RTC acting in its general jurisdiction is devoid of authority to render an adjudication and
    resolve the said issue.

    You might also like