Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    8 Pacioles vs. Ching. Digestdocx

    Uploaded by

    Jun Jun
    The trial court denied the petitioner's request to partition and distribute the estate of Miguelita Ching-Pacioles, holding that a hearing was needed to determine what properties were part of the conjugal estate versus the paraphernal properties of Miguelita or co-owned with the respondent. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court, acting as an intestate court, does not have jurisdiction to determine questions of ownership over properties claimed as part of the estate but also claimed by another party with a title adverse to the estate. The proper action is for the parties to file a separate civil case in a court of general jurisdiction to adjudicate the conflicting claims of title.

    Copyright:

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

    8 Pacioles vs. Ching. Digestdocx

    Uploaded by

    Jun Jun
    41 views1 page
    The trial court denied the petitioner's request to partition and distribute the estate of Miguelita Ching-Pacioles, holding that a hearing was needed to determine what properties were part of the conjugal estate versus the paraphernal properties of Miguelita or co-owned with the respondent. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court, acting as an intestate court, does not have jurisdiction to determine questions of ownership over properties claimed as part of the estate but also claimed by another party with a title adverse to the estate. The proper action is for the parties to file a separate civil case in a court of general jurisdiction to adjudicate the conflicting claims of title.

    Original Description:

    Pacioles vs Ching

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The trial court denied the petitioner's request to partition and distribute the estate of Miguelita Ching-Pacioles, holding that a hearing was needed to determine what properties were part of the conjugal estate versus the paraphernal properties of Miguelita or co-owned with the respondent. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court, acting as an intestate court, does not have jurisdiction to determine questions of ownership over properties claimed as part of the estate but also claimed by another party with a title adverse to the estate. The proper action is for the parties to file a separate civil case in a court of general jurisdiction to adjudicate the conflicting claims of title.

    Copyright:

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

    8 Pacioles vs. Ching. Digestdocx

    Uploaded by

    Jun Jun
    The trial court denied the petitioner's request to partition and distribute the estate of Miguelita Ching-Pacioles, holding that a hearing was needed to determine what properties were part of the conjugal estate versus the paraphernal properties of Miguelita or co-owned with the respondent. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court, acting as an intestate court, does not have jurisdiction to determine questions of ownership over properties claimed as part of the estate but also claimed by another party with a title adverse to the estate. The proper action is for the parties to file a separate civil case in a court of general jurisdiction to adjudicate the conflicting claims of title.

    Copyright:

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

    EMILIO B. PACIOLES, JR.

    , IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR AND HEIR OF


    THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF MIGUELITA CHING-PACIOLES, petitioner,
    vs. MIGUELA CHUATOCO-CHING, respondent.
    Facts:
    On March 13, 1992, Miguelita died intestate, leaving real properties, stock
    investments, bank deposits, and interests in certain businesses. She was survived by
    her husband, petitioner herein, and their two minor children.
    Consequently, petitioner filed with the RTC a verified petition for the settlement of
    Miguelitas estate.
    Miguelitas mother, Miguela Chuatoco-Ching, herein respondent, filed an opposition,
    on the ground that the bulk of Miguelitas estate is composed of paraphernal properties.
    And that Respondent owns the bulk of Miguelitas estate as an heir and co-owner.
    The intestate court denied petitioners prayer for partition and distribution of the
    estate, holding that it is 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.
    Issue:
    WON the trial court, acting as an intestate court, can hear and pass upon
    questions of ownership involving properties claimed to be part of the decedent’s estate?
    Ruling:
    No.
    It is well-settled 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.
    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. Hence, respondents
    recourse is to file a separate action with a court of general jurisdiction.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.

    You might also like