25 – Pacioles Jr. v.

Chuatoco-Ching

Emilio B. Pacioles, Jr. et. al. vs. Miguela Chuatoco-Ching

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.

Facts:

 In 1992, Miguelita died intestate, leaving real properties with an estimated value of P10.5M,
stock investments worth P518,783.00, bank deposits amounting to P6.54M, and interests in
certain businesses. 
 She was survived by her husband (Petitioner) and their 2 minor children.
 Consequently, petitioner filed with the RTC a verified petition for the settlement of Miguelita’s
estate. 
- He prayed that (a) letters of administration be issued in his name, and (b) that the net
residue of the estate be divided among the compulsory heirs.
 Miguelita’s mother, Miguela Chuatoco-Ching (Respondent) filed an opposition, specifically to
petitioner’s prayer for the issuance of letters of administration on the grounds that:
(a) petitioner is incompetent and unfit to exercise the duties of an administrator; and
(b) the bulk of Miguelita’s estate is composed of “paraphernal properties.”
- Respondent prayed that the letters of administration be issued to her instead. 
- Afterwards, she also filed a motion for her appointment as special administratrix.

Petitioner’s allegations:
- That the respondent had no direct and material interest in the estate, she not being a
compulsory heir, and that he, being the surviving spouse, has the preferential right to be
appointed as administrator under the law.

Respondent’s contentions:
- That she has direct and material interest in the estate because she gave half of her
inherited properties to Miguelita on condition that both of them “would undertake
whatever business endeavor they decided to, in the capacity of business partners.”
- In her omnibus motion, she nominated her son Emmanuel to act as special
administrator.

The RTC appointed petitioner and Emmanuel as joint regular administrators of the estate. Both
were issued letters of administration after taking their oath and posting the requisite bond.
No claims were filed against the estate within the period set. Thereafter, petitioner submitted to
the intestate court an inventory of Miguelita’s estate. Emmanuel did not submit an inventory.

RTC: declared petitioner and his 2 minor children as the only compulsory heirs of Miguelita.
- Petitioner filed with the intestate court an omnibus motion praying, among others, that an
Order be issued directing the:
1) payment of estate taxes;
2) partition and distribution of the estate among the declared heirs; and
3) payment of attorney’s fees.
25 – Pacioles Jr. v. Chuatoco-Ching

- The intestate court denied petitioner’s prayer for partition and distribution of the estate,
holding that it is “premature.” The intestate court ratiocinated as follows:
- The Court finds the prayer of petitioner in this regard to be premature. 
- Thus, a hearing 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.‟
 
Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the intestate
court’s Order and Resolution. (CA dismissed)
 
Issue: W/N a 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 – NO
 
RULING:
 No, the question of ownership of properties alleged to be part of the estate must be
submitted to the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction.
 The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court either as an intestate or a probate
court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of will
of deceased persons but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership
that arise during the proceedings. The patent rationale for this rule is that such court
exercises special and limited jurisdiction. 
 A well-recognized exception to the rule is the principle that an intestate or a probate court
may hear and pass upon questions of ownership when its purpose is to determine
whether or not a property should be included in the inventory. 
- In such situations the adjudication is merely incidental and provisional.
 The Court of Appeals relied heavily on the above principle in sustaining the jurisdiction of
the intestate court to conduct a hearing on respondent’s claim. Such reliance is misplaced.
 Under the said principle, the key consideration is that the purpose of the intestate or probate
court in hearing and passing upon questions of ownership is merely to determine whether
or not a property should be included in the inventory.
 In this case:
1. The inventory was not disputed. In fact, respondent, in her Manifestation, adopted the
inventory submitted by the petitioner.
- Respondent could have opposed petitioner’s inventory and sought the exclusion of the
specific properties which she believed or considered to be hers. But instead of doing so,
she expressly adopted the inventory, taking exception only to the low valuation placed
on the real estate properties.
2. Emmanuel, respondent’s son and representative in the settlement of Miguelita’s estate,
did not submit his own inventory. His mandate, as co-administrator, is "to submit within
three (3) months after his appointment a true inventory and appraisal of all the real and
personal estate of the deceased which have come into his possession or knowledge."
- He could have submitted an inventory, excluding therefrom those properties
which respondent considered to be hers. The fact that he did not endeavor to submit
one shows that he acquiesced with petitioner’s inventory.

 Respondent’s purpose here was not to obtain from the intestate court a ruling of what
properties should or should not be included in the inventory. She wanted to secure from the
intestate court a final determination of her claim of ownership over properties comprising the
bulk of Miguelita‟s estate.
25 – Pacioles Jr. v. Chuatoco-Ching

 Clearly, the RTC, acting as an intestate court, had overstepped its jurisdiction. Its
proper course should have been to maintain a hands-off stance on the matter. 
 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, respondent’s recourse is to file a separate action with a court of general jurisdiction.
 The intestate court is not the appropriate forum for the resolution of her adverse claim of
ownership over properties ostensibly belonging to Miguelita's estate.

Even assuming that the intestate court merely intended to make a provisional or prima
facie determination of the issue of ownership, still respondent’s claim cannot prosper.
 It bears stressing that the bulk of Miguelita’s estate, as stated in petitioner’s inventory,
comprises real estates covered by the Torrens System which are registered either in the
name of Miguelita alone or with petitioner. 
 Respondent could not even specify which of the properties listed in petitioner's inventory
belong to her. Neither could she present any document to prove her claim of ownership.
 As such, they are considered the owners of the properties until their title is nullified
or modified in an appropriate ordinary action.
 We find this Court’s pronouncement in Bolisay vs. Alcid23 relevant, thus:
"It does not matter that respondent-administratrix has evidence purporting to support her
claim of ownership, for, on the other hand, petitioners have a Torrens title in their favor,
which under the law is granted with incontestability until after it has been set aside in the
manner indicated in the law itself, which, of course, does not include, bringing up the
matter as a mere incident in special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of
deceased persons.

NOTES

 P.D. 1529, otherwise known as, "The Property Registration Decree," proscribes collateral
attack against Torrens Title, hence:
"Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack.
A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance
with law."