Natcher v. CA

Natcher
v. Court of Appeals Answering, Natcher argued that being married to

[G.R. No. 133000. October 2, 2001.] Graciano on 1980, she is likewise considered as a
Buena, J.: compulsory heir and that during his lifetime,
Graciano has already distributed in advance his
Facts: Spouses Graciano del Rosario and Graciana properties to his children and as such, the private
Esguerra were registered owners of a parcel of respondents can no longer claim against
land (9,322 sqm) in Manila. Upon the death of Graciano's estate or Natcher's property.
Graciana in 1951, Graciano, together with his six
children, entered into an extrajudicial settlement The RTC declared the deed of sale as a complete
of Graciana's estate, adjudicating and dividing nullity for being prohibited by law as a sale
among themselves the real property. between spouses, there being no separation of
property as a property regime or a judicial decree
Graciano received his 8/14 share, while the six declaring separation of property. The RTC also
children received 1/14 each. A new TCT was thus ruled that the same is prohibited as a DONATION
issued in the name of Graciano and the six (under Art. 133 of the Civil Code according to the
children. ruling)
Later, the heirs executed an agreement of Nevertheless, the RTC ruled that the transaction
consolidation-subdivision of real property with can be an extension of advance inheritance to
waiver of rights wherein they subdivided among Natcher, being a compulsory heir.
themselves the parcel of land covered by the TCT
into several lots. In so doing, Graciano DONATED The CA reversed the RTC, ruling that the probate
to his children, share and share alike, a portion of court has the exclusive jurisdiction to make a just
his interest in the land amounting to 4,849.38 and legal distribution of the estate and that the
square meters leaving only 447.60 square meters court a quo, trying an ordinary action for
registered under his name. reconveyance/annulment of title, went beyond its
jurisdiction when it performed the acts proper only
Subsequently, the 447.60 sqm left to Graciano in a special proceeding for the settlement of estate
was further subdivided into two separate lots, of a deceased person.
one having a land area of 80.90 sqm and the
second with 396.70 sqm. Graciano sold the first Thus, according to the CA, the RTC erred in
lot to a third person and retained ownership of regarding the property as an advanced
the second. inheritance and what it should have done is
merely to rule on the validity of the sale.
Graciano later married petitioner Patricia
Natcher. During the marriage, Graciano sold the Issue: WON the trial court (a court of general
second lot (396.70 sqm) to her and as a result, a jurisdiction) had the jurisdiction to determine the
new TCT was issued in her name. Graciano, five issue regarding the settlement of Graciano's
years after marrying Natcher, died, leaving his estate.
second wife Patricia and his children in the first
marriage as heirs. Ruling: NO. [A]n action for reconveyance and
annulment of title with damages is a civil action,
Later, private respondents filed a civil case before whereas matters relating to settlement of the
the RTC of Manila alleging that upon Graciano's estate of a deceased person such as
death, petitioner Natcher, through fraud, advancement of property made by the
misrepresentation and forgery, acquired the TCT decedent, partake of the nature of a special
by making it appear that Graciano executed a proceeding, which concomitantly requires the
deed of sale in her favor. They further alleged that application of specific rules as provided for in the
the fraudulent sale resulted in the IMPAIRMENT Rules of Court.
of their legitimes.
Clearly, matters which involve settlement and
distribution of the estate of the decedent fall
within the exclusive province of the probate court
in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
Of equal importance is that before any conclusion

about the legal share due to a compulsory heir
may be reached, it is necessary that certain
steps be taken first. The net estate of the
decedent must be ascertained, by deducting all
payable obligations and charges from the value of
the property owned by the deceased at the time of
his death; then, all donations subject to collation
would be added to it. With the partible estate thus
determined, the legitime of the compulsory heir
or heirs can be established; and only thereafter
can it be ascertained whether or not a donation
had prejudiced the legitimes.
A perusal of the records, specifically the

antecedents and proceedings in the present case,
reveals that the trial court failed to observe
established rules of procedure governing the
settlement of the estate of Graciano Del Rosario.
This Court sees no cogent reason to sanction the
non-observance of these well-entrenched rules
and hereby holds that under the prevailing
circumstances, a probate court, in the exercise of
its limited jurisdiction, is indeed the best forum to
ventilate and adjudge the issue of advancement as
well as other related matters involving the
settlement of Graciano Del Rosario's estate.

Natcher v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natcher v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natcher v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natcher

v. Court of Appeals Answering, Natcher argued that being married to

Of equal importance is that before any conclusion

A perusal of the records, specifically the

You might also like

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