Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 287 views

    Baybayan vs. Aquino, 149 Scra 186 (1987)

    Uploaded by

    leslansangan
    1) The respondents filed a petition for the settlement of an estate which included a property lot. However, the petitioners also claimed ownership over the same lot. 2) The probate court ordered the petitioners to amend their complaint to determine whether the disputed lot was actually part of the estate. In response, the petitioners filed an omnibus motion to amend their complaint but the judge dismissed the case, finding the motion did not comply with the order. 3) The Supreme Court held that while the probate court's determination of ownership was not final, by filing the omnibus motion, the petitioners voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction. However, the order to amend lacked specificity so the dismissal was improper.

    Copyright:

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

    Baybayan vs. Aquino, 149 Scra 186 (1987)

    Uploaded by

    leslansangan
    287 views2 pages
    1) The respondents filed a petition for the settlement of an estate which included a property lot. However, the petitioners also claimed ownership over the same lot. 2) The probate court ordered the petitioners to amend their complaint to determine whether the disputed lot was actually part of the estate. In response, the petitioners filed an omnibus motion to amend their complaint but the judge dismissed the case, finding the motion did not comply with the order. 3) The Supreme Court held that while the probate court's determination of ownership was not final, by filing the omnibus motion, the petitioners voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction. However, the order to amend lacked specificity so the dismissal was improper.

    Original Description:

    Baybayan vs. Aquino, 149 Scra 186 (1987)

    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) The respondents filed a petition for the settlement of an estate which included a property lot. However, the petitioners also claimed ownership over the same lot. 2) The probate court ordered the petitioners to amend their complaint to determine whether the disputed lot was actually part of the estate. In response, the petitioners filed an omnibus motion to amend their complaint but the judge dismissed the case, finding the motion did not comply with the order. 3) The Supreme Court held that while the probate court's determination of ownership was not final, by filing the omnibus motion, the petitioners voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction. However, the order to amend lacked specificity so the dismissal was improper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    287 views2 pages

    Baybayan vs. Aquino, 149 Scra 186 (1987)

    Uploaded by

    leslansangan
    1) The respondents filed a petition for the settlement of an estate which included a property lot. However, the petitioners also claimed ownership over the same lot. 2) The probate court ordered the petitioners to amend their complaint to determine whether the disputed lot was actually part of the estate. In response, the petitioners filed an omnibus motion to amend their complaint but the judge dismissed the case, finding the motion did not comply with the order. 3) The Supreme Court held that while the probate court's determination of ownership was not final, by filing the omnibus motion, the petitioners voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction. However, the order to amend lacked specificity so the dismissal was improper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BAYBAYAN vs.

    AQUINO, 149 SCRA 186 (1987)

    FACTS:
    The respondents filed a petition for summary settlement of the estate of Vincent
    Oria. The probate court issued an order adjudicating the estate to the heirs of the
    decedent. However, when a representative of the private respondents went to
    cultivate the portion adjudicated to them, he was prevented by Jose Diaz and
    Cipriano Evangelista. As a consequence, petitioners filed a complaint for the
    quieting of title, plus damages and to refrain the defendants from enforcing the writ
    of execution.
    Meanwhile, the probate court found that the property in the question was registered
    in the names of the petitioners. the same court ordered the petitioners to amend
    their complaint to determine whether lot E is part of the decedents estate
    inasmuch as it is now the property claimed by Baybayan covered by a TCT. Pursuant
    thereto, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion amending the complaint and dropping
    some defendants. the judge however, found that it did not comply with his order
    and dismissed the case. Petitioners now contend that the judge has no authority to
    dismiss the case because the order to amend the complaint was issued in
    connection with Special Proceeding 24-R, where they were not even parties.

    ISSUE/S:
    Whether the petitioners are bound by the judges ruling.

    HELD:
    YES. The parties voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the probate
    court when they filed Omnibus Motion in Civil Case 231-R, praying for leave to
    amend their complaint in accordance with the order of the probate court. They
    cannot be allowed to adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of
    the judge to whom they submitted their cause voluntarily.
    The findings of the judge as to the ownership of Lot E do not justify the order to
    amend the complaint since the determination of the ownership of the said lot by the
    judge presiding over a court exercising probate jurisdiction is not final or ultimate in
    nature and is without prejudice to the right of an interested party to raise the
    question of ownership in a proper action.
    When questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate
    of a deceased person, by the adverse party to that of the deceased and his estate,

    such questions cannot be determined in the courts of administrative proceedings.


    The CFI, acting as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions
    which must be submitted to the CFI in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a
    court of first instance.
    The order to amend the complaint did not specify what the amendments should be
    or how the complaint should be amended so that the petitioners could not be
    faulted. Thus, the petition for certiorari to review the lower court order is granted

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy