LUCENA MAGALLANES vs.

UNION KAYANAN

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-31048. January 20, 1976.]

LUCENA MAGALLANES, petitioner, vs. HON. UNION KAYANAN,

Presiding Judge of Branch IV, CFI, Quezon and the HEIRS OF
ELIGIO MAGALLANES, respondents.

Abelio M. Marte and Clemente T. Alcala for petitioner.

De Mesa & De Mesa, Bienvenido A. Mapaye, Lualhati S. Arceo-Martinez,
Renato A. Martinez & Bayani G. Romulo, Wilfredo B. Villabona for private
respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner filed a "solicitud" praying that certain lots be partitioned and

distributed among the heirs of Filomena Magallanes. Private respondents,
heirs of Eligio Magallanes, filed an opposition and a motion to dismiss
claiming ownership and title over the lots in question. Subsequently, private
respondents filed a petition for summary judgment on the pleadings praying
that their absolute right be recognized and confirmed. Notwithstanding the
opposition thereto of petitioner, the lower court rendered a summary
judgment confirming private respondents' absolute and exclusive right of
ownership and possession over the properties. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration but the lower court denied the motion for being pro-forma
and declared its decision final and executory, and a writ of execution was
issued and served upon petitioner. In the meantime, petitioner was able to
perfect her appeal.
The Supreme Court, ruling that the probate court cannot pass the
question of title or ownership over the properties alleged to form part of the
estate of the deceased but claimed by another by an adverse title to that of
the deceased; that the conflicting claims of petitioner and respondents can
only be settled by trial on the merits; and that the motion for reconsideration
was not pro-forma, declared the decision of the lower court as null and void
and remanded the case to the lower court as a Court of general jurisdiction.

SYLLABUS

1. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; SETTLEMENT OF STATE OF DECEASED

PERSON; JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURT. — Well established is the
doctrine that the property, whether real or personal, which are alleged to
form part of the estate of a deceased person but denied by another to be his
property by adverse title to that of the deceased and his state and not by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased, cannot be determined
by the probate court. Such question must be submitted to the court of First
Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction to try and determine
ordinary actions. The probate court may do so only for the purpose of
determining whether or not a given property should be included in the
inventory of the estate of the deceased but such determination is not
conclusive and is still subject to a final decision in a separate action to be
instituted between the parties. Likewise, the probate court may also
determine question of title to property if the parties voluntarily submitted to
its jurisdiction and introduced evidence to prove ownership.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Where the action instituted by the
petitioner was not for the purpose of determining whether or not a given
property should be included in the inventory of the estate of the deceased
but the action was for partition and distribution of the properties left by the
deceased, it is erroneous for the probate court to resolve the question of title
or ownership over the properties in said proceedings.
3. JUDGMENTS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CAN BE AVAILED OF WHERE
NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT IS RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS.
— Summary judgment can be availed of where no genuine issue as to any
material fact is raised in the pleadings. Where there is an issues of fact
joined by the parties or where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed
or contested neither one of them can pray for a summary judgment to take
the place of a trial.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Where petitioner claims she and her
co-heirs have the right to inherit the properties as they form part of the
estate of the deceased, while on the other hand, private respondents
contend that they acquired the ownership over the said properties by
purchase from the deceased during her lifetime, there is a factual dispute
which can only be properly settled by means of a trial on the merits, and,
hence summary judgment is uncalled for.
5. PLEADINGS; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; PRO-FORMA MOTION. — A
motion for new trial or reconsideration on the ground that the judgment is
contrary to law, which does not point out the supposed defects in the
judgment is pro-forma Section 2, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court requires the
movant for the new trial to point out the findings of fact or conclusions of law
supposed to be insufficiently borne out by the evidence or contrary to law.
6. ID.; ID.; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/NEW TRIAL IN INSTANT
CASE IS NOT PRO-FORMA. — Where the motion for reconsideration shows
specifically the conclusions reached by the lower court which are contrary to
law, the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower court resolve the issue of
ownership and possession of properties left by the deceased person in the
settlement of his estate proceedings and the propriety of the rendition of the
summary judgment on the pleadings, said motion is not pro-forma since it
expressly makes reference to what portion of the lower court's conclusion
are contrary to law and to established jurisprudence.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; FILING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; WHICH
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 TO APPEAL. — Where a motion for reconsideration is not pro-forma, the filing
of the same on time stopped the running of the period within which to
appeal the decision. It was therefore an error on the part of the lower court
to issue a writ of execution of the decision in question before it has become
final and executory.
8. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; SUBMISSION OF RECORD
ON APPEAL NOT NECESSARY. — It is elementary that in a petition for
certiorari the submission of a record on appeal is not necessary.

DECISION

MARTIN, J : p

The validity of a summary judgment rendered in the Court of First

Instance of Quezon, in Special Proceedings No. 3913, entitled Re: Summary
Settlement of the Estate of Filomena Magallanes, Lucena Magallanes,
petitioner, versus Heirs of Eligio Magallanes, oppositors, is the main issue in
this petition for review.
On August 4, 1960, petitioner Lucena Magallanes filed a "Solicitud"
praying that Lot No. 2657 covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1091
and one-half (1/2) of Lot No. 3465 covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
6447, both of the Register of Deeds of Tayabas (Quezon) be partitioned and
distributed among the heirs of the deceased Filomena Magallanes.
On October 31, 1961, private respondents, the Heirs of Eligio
Magallanes, namely: Maria San Buenaventura, Godofredo Magallanes and
Carmen Magallanes de Ingente, filed their opposition and motion to dismiss
the "Solicitud", claiming title and ownership over the parcels of land in
question and raising the issue that the trial court is devoid of jurisdiction to
resolve the issues raised in the pleadings.
On July 12, 1968, the private respondents filed a petition for summary
judgment on the pleadings praying that their absolute right of ownership
over the properties in question be recognized and confirmed. Petitioner filed
her opposition to the petition for summary judgment on the ground that in a
summary settlement of an estate, the Court has no jurisdiction to pass finally
and definitely upon the title or ownership over the properties involved
therein; and that summary judgment is not proper, there being a genuine
issue or material controversy raised by the pleadings of the parties.
On March 21, 1969, the lower court rendered a summary judgment on
the pleadings submitted by the parties confirming the private respondents'
(Heirs of Eligio Magallanes) absolute and exclusive right of ownership and
possession over the whole of Lot No. 2657 and the one-half undivided
portion of Lot No. 3465 and ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon
Province to cancel the Notice of Lis Pendens on Original Certificate of Title
No. 1091 covering Lot No. 2657. prcd

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 On April 22, 1969, the petitioner moved for reconsideration of the
aforesaid summary judgment and/or new trial but the lower court on June
19, 1969 denied the motion for reconsideration for being pro forma and
declared its decision dated March 21, 1969 to be final and executory.
Accordingly, a writ of execution was issued and served upon the petitioner
on July 14, 1969. However, even before said date, petitioner was able to
perfect her appeal on June 30, 1969, with the filing of the notice of appeal,
appeal bond and record on appeal.
In her brief, petitioner presses upon the lower court the following
errors:
I

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PASSING UPON FINALLY AND

DEFINITELY THE TITLE TO OR OWNERSHIP OF LOT 2657 OF THE
LUCENA CADASTRE, COVERED BY ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.
1091 OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAYABAS AND ONE-HALF (1/2)
OF LOT NO. 3465 OF THE LUCENA CADASTRE, COVERED BY
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 6447 OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
TAYABAS, WHEN IT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO SO ACT, THE PETITIONER
HAVING CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO SUBMIT THAT ISSUE TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT.
II

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT MERELY DETERMINING IN THE

DECISION DATED MARCH 21, 1969 WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTIES
IN QUESTION SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY ASSUMING
THE AFORESAID DECISION RENDERED THROUGH SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WAS PROPER AND REGULAR.
III

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RENDERING THE DECISION DATED

MARCH 21, 1969 THROUGH SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT TRIAL,
WHERE (THERE) ARE GENUINE ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONTROVERSY,
THE PETITIONER CLAIMING IN HER PLEADINGS THAT SHE AND HER CO-
HEIRS OWN THE REALTIES IN QUESTION BY INHERITANCE FROM THE
DECEASED FILOMENA MAGALLANES WHILE THE RESPONDENTS CLAIM
OWNERSHIP OVER THE AFORESAID REALTIES BY PURCHASE FROM THE
DECEASED FILOMENA MAGALLANES DURING HER LIFETIME.
IV

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD IN ITS ORDER ON JUNE

19, 1969 THAT THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED APRIL 21,
1969 IS PRO FORMA AND DID NOT SUSPEND THE RUNNING OF THE
PERIOD TO APPEAL.
V

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE DECISION DATED

MARCH 21, 1969 FINAL AND EXECUTORY.

VI
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE ISSUANCE OF A
WRIT OF EXECUTION IN THE SAME ORDER OF JUNE 19, 1969.
VII

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ISSUING THE WRIT OF EXECUTION

DATED JUNE 19, 1969 WHICH IS VOID AND OF NO EFFECT."

We find merit in the petitioner's argument that the lower court has no
jurisdiction to pass finally and definitely upon the title or ownership of the
properties involved in the summary settlement of the estate of the deceased
Filomena Magallanes instituted by the petitioner. Well established is the
doctrine that the property, whether real or personal, which are alleged to
form part of the estate of a deceased person but claimed by another to be
his property by adverse title to that of the deceased and his estate and not
by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased, cannot be
determined by the probate court. Such questions must be submitted to the
Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction to try and
determine ordinary actions. 1 The probate court may do so only for the
purpose of determining whether or not a given property should be included
in the inventory of the estate of the deceased, but such determination is not
conclusive and is still subject to a final decision in a separate action to be
instituted between the parties. 2 Likewise, the probate court may also
determine questions of title to property if the parties voluntarily submitted to
its jurisdiction and introduced evidence to prove ownership. 3
In the case at bar, the action instituted by the petitioner was not for the
purpose of determining whether or not a given property should be included
in the inventory of the estate of the deceased. The action was for partition
and distribution of the properties left by the deceased. Neither have all of the
parties voluntarily submitted the issue of ownership for resolution by the
court. As a matter of fact the petitioner opposed the petition of private
respondents to have the issue of ownership or title decided in the
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased. It was therefore
erroneous for the lower court to resolve the question of title or, ownership
over the properties in said proceeding. It could only pass upon such a
question in the exercise of its general jurisdiction in an ordinary action.
LLphil

Petitioner faulted the lower court for rendering summary judgment on

the case. Summary judgment can be availed of where no genuine issue as to
any material fact is raised in the pleadings. 4 Where there is an issue or
issues of fact joined by the parties or where the facts pleaded by the parties
are disputed or contested, neither one of them can pray for a summary
judgment to take the place of a trial. 5 Summary judgment can be rendered
only where there are no questions of fact in issue or where the material
allegations of the pleadings are not disputed.
An examination of the pleadings in this case clearly shows that there is
a genuine issue or material controversy raised therein. Thus, petitioner
claims that she and her co-heirs have the right to inherit the properties in
question as they form part of the estate of Filomena Magallanes. On the
other hand, herein private respondents contend that they acquired the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 ownership over the said properties by purchase from Filomena Magallanes
during her lifetime. In the face of the conflicting claims of both petitioner and
respondents a factual dispute certainly arises which can only be properly
settled by means of a trial on the merits. Summary judgment was, therefore,
uncalled for in the premises.
Petitioner also assailed the order of the lower court denying her motion
for reconsideration of the summary judgment in question as pro forma. A
motion for new trial or reconsideration on the ground that the judgment is
contrary to law, which does not point out the supposed defects in the
judgment is pro forma. Section 2, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court requires the
movant for the new trial to point out the findings of fact or conclusions of law
supposed to be insufficiently borne out by the evidence or contrary to law. 6
A reading of the motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid summary
judgment shows specifically the conclusions reached by the lower court
which are contrary to law, the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower
court to resolve the issue of ownership and possession of properties left by a
deceased person in the settlement of his estate and the propriety of the
rendition of the summary judgment on the pleadings submitted by the
parties. Although the former pleadings of the petitioner already contained
allegations on the question of jurisdiction and the propriety of the summary
judgment, this fact does not make the motion for reconsideration pro forma
because it expressly made reference to what portion of the lower court's
conclusion are contrary to law and to established jurisprudence. In a case 7
the Supreme Court held that the motion for new trial or reconsideration
cannot be considered as simply pro forma where it not only states that the
decision is contrary to law but also explains in detail relevant facts for
seeking its revocation. Since the motion for reconsideration is not pro forma,
the filing of the same on time stopped the running of the period within which
to appeal the decision. It was therefore an error on the part of the lower
court to issue a writ of execution of the decision in question before it has
become final and executory. LLpr

Finally, private respondents claim that the trial court erred in

approving petitioner's record on appeal after it had lost jurisdiction over the
case. There is no need to resolve the assigned error. It is elementary that in
a petition for certiorari like the case before Us, the submission of a record on
appeal is not necessary.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring the decision of the lower court dated March 21, 1968
and the writ of execution dated June 19, 1969 null and void; and
2. Remanding the case to the lower court as a court of general
jurisdiction to settle the title and ownership over the parcels of land in
question between Lucena Magallanes who claims to have inherited the same
from Filomena Magallanes and the heirs of Eligio Magallanes who claim to
have purchased them.
Costs against the private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Teehankee, Chairman, Makasiar, Esguerra and Muñoz Palma, JJ.,
concur.

Footnotes
1. Bauerman vs. Casas, 10 Phil. 386; Chanco vs. Madrilejos and Abreu, 12 Phil.
543; Devesa vs. Arbes, 13 Phil. 373; Franco vs. O'Brien, 13 Phil. 359; De los
Santos vs. Jarra, 15 Phil. 147; Guzman vs. Anog, 37 Phil. 61; Lunsod vs.
Ortega, 46 Phil. 644; Santiago vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, 55 Phil. 62;
Mercado vs. Mercado, 65 Phil. 543; Jocson vs. Nava, 69 Phil. 1; Ferraris vs.
Rodas, 65 Phil. 732; Mallari vs. Mallari, 92 Phil. 694; Baquial vs. Amihan, 92
Phil. 501; Ongsingco vs. Tan, 97 Phil. 330; also Pascual vs. Pascual, 73 Phil.
561, Cordova Vda. de Mañalac vs. Ocampo, 73 Phil. 661; Padilla vs. Natela, L-
7479, 51 O.G. 5136.
2. Marcelino vs. Antonio, 70 Phil. 388; Garcia vs. Garcia, 67 Phil. 353; Cordova
Vda. de Mañalac vs. Ocampo, supra.; Bercena vs. Ocampo, 74 Phil. 227;
Heirs of Gregoire vs. Baker, 51 Phil. 75; Fulgencio vs. Perez, 49 O.G. 5477;
Martin de Guanzon vs. Jalandoni, 93 Phil. 1089; Bernardo vs. Court of
Appeals, L-18247, Feb. 28, 1963; Junquera vs. Borromeo, L-18498, March 30,
1967.

3. Cordova Vda. de Mañalac vs. Ocampo, supra.; Cunanan vs. Amparo, 45 O.G.
3796; Pascual vs. Pascual, supra.
4. Enervida vs. De la Torre, et al., 55 SCRA 339; De Leon vs. Faustino L-15804,
Nov. 29, 1969.
5. Singleton vs. Phil. Trust, 99 Phil. 91; Ibañez vs. North Negros Sugar Co., et
al., 96 Phil. 980; Gatchalian vs. Pavilin, L-17619, Oct. 31, 1962; Agcanas vs.
Nagum, 32 SCRA 298.
6. Villalon, et al. vs. Ysip and Golangco, 98 Phil. 851; United Employees Welfare
Association vs. Isaac Bowling Alley, 102 Phil. 219.
7. Carbonel vs. Padilla, et al., 75 Phil. 95.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com