LUCENA MAGALLANES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. UNION KAYANAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH IV, CFI, QUEZON AND THE HEIRS OF ELIGIO MAGALLANES, RESPONDENTS.

Lucena Magallanes versus Kayanan

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Lucena Magallanes against the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon and the heirs of Eligio Magallanes. The petitioner had asked the trial court, sitting in a summary settlement of the estate of the deceased Filomena Magallanes, to partition and distribute two parcels of land. The private respondents opposed, claiming the same lands as their own by purchase from the deceased during her lifetime. The trial court then rendered a summary judgment confirming the respondents' ownership. The case matters because it draws the boundary between the probate court and the court of general jurisdiction, and because it restates when a summary judgment may and may not be rendered.

Procedural History

Lucena Magallanes filed her Solicitud for partition and distribution in the Court of First Instance of Quezon in a special proceeding for the summary settlement of the estate of Filomena Magallanes. The heirs of Eligio Magallanes filed an opposition and a motion to dismiss, claiming ownership of the lands and questioning the court's jurisdiction. The private respondents later filed a petition for summary judgment on the pleadings. Over the petitioner's opposition, the trial court rendered a summary judgment confirming the respondents' absolute and exclusive right of ownership and possession over the whole of Lot 2657 and the one-half undivided portion of Lot 3465, and ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The petitioner moved for reconsideration and for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion as pro forma, declared its decision final and executory, and ordered a writ of execution. The petitioner perfected her appeal by filing her notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal. The case reached the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

On the fourth of August, 1960, Lucena Magallanes filed a Solicitud praying that Lot 2657, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1091, and one-half of Lot 3465, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 6447, both of the Register of Deeds of Tayabas, now Quezon, be partitioned and distributed among the heirs of the deceased Filomena Magallanes.

On the thirty-first of October, 1961, the 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. They claimed title and ownership over the parcels of land and raised the issue that the trial court had no jurisdiction to resolve the matters raised in the pleadings.

On the twelfth of July, 1968, the private respondents filed a petition for summary judgment on the pleadings, praying that their absolute right of ownership over the properties be recognized and confirmed. The petitioner opposed, arguing that in a summary settlement the court has no jurisdiction to pass finally upon title, and that a summary judgment is improper because the pleadings raised a genuine issue. On the twenty-first of March, 1969, the lower court rendered a summary judgment confirming the respondents' ownership and possession and ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The petitioner moved for reconsideration and for a new trial, but the lower court denied the motion as pro forma and declared its decision final and executory. A writ of execution was issued, but the petitioner had already perfected her appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court, sitting in the summary settlement of the estate, had jurisdiction to pass finally and definitely upon the title to or ownership of the properties in question.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in rendering a summary judgment on the pleadings despite a genuine issue of fact.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in treating the petitioner's motion for reconsideration as pro forma and in declaring its decision final and executory, and in issuing a writ of execution.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, on motions for new trial or reconsideration, provides:

Section 2. Grounds for new trial or reconsideration. The court may grant a new trial or reconsideration on any of the following grounds: (a) That fraud or irregularity has been committed in the proceedings; (b) That the judgment or final order is contrary to law or the evidence; (c) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the movant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial.

The Court uses this provision to test whether the motion for reconsideration pointed out the supposed defects in the judgment, which determines whether it was pro forma and whether it stopped the running of the period to appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the lower court had no jurisdiction to pass finally and definitely upon the title to the properties in a summary settlement. The property alleged to form part of the estate but claimed by another under an adverse title, and not by right of inheritance, 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 ordinary actions. The probate court may determine title only to decide whether property should be included in the inventory, and that determination is not conclusive and is subject to a separate action. It may also determine title if the parties voluntarily submit the issue and introduce evidence. Here, the action was for partition and distribution, not for inclusion in the inventory, and the petitioner did not voluntarily submit the issue of ownership. It was therefore erroneous for the lower court to resolve title in the settlement proceeding.

On the second issue, the Court held that a summary judgment is proper only where no genuine issue as to any material fact is raised in the pleadings. Where the facts pleaded are disputed or contested, neither party may pray for a summary judgment to take the place of a trial. The pleadings showed a genuine issue: the petitioner claimed the lands by inheritance from Filomena Magallanes, while the private respondents claimed them by purchase from her during her lifetime. This factual dispute could only be settled by a trial on the merits, so the summary judgment was uncalled for.

On the third issue, the Court held that a motion for 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. Here, the motion specifically identified the conclusions of the lower court that were contrary to law, including the lack of jurisdiction and the impropriety of the summary judgment. The motion was therefore not pro forma, and its timely filing stopped the running of the period to appeal. It was error for the lower court to issue a writ of execution before the decision had become final and executory.

Doctrine

A probate court cannot pass finally upon the title to property claimed by another under an adverse title, and not by inheritance from the deceased. It may determine title only to decide whether property should be included in the inventory, and that determination is not conclusive and is subject to a separate ordinary action. It may also resolve title if the parties voluntarily submit the issue and introduce evidence. A summary judgment is proper only where no genuine issue as to any material fact is raised in the pleadings; where the facts are disputed, a trial on the merits is required. A motion for reconsideration that does not point out the supposed defects in the judgment is pro forma, but one that specifies the conclusions contrary to law is not, and its timely filing stops the running of the period to appeal.

Disposition

The Court declared the summary judgment of the lower court and the writ of execution null and void, and remanded the case to the lower court as a court of general jurisdiction to settle the title and ownership over the parcels of land between Lucena Magallanes and the heirs of Eligio Magallanes, with costs against the private respondents.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the probate court cannot finally decide title claimed under an adverse title, and a summary judgment cannot replace a trial where the pleadings raise a genuine issue of fact. Examiners use this case to test the limits of probate jurisdiction and the requisites for a valid summary judgment.