G.R. No. L-21033. December 28, 1970
TESTATE ESTATE OF ALEJANDRO GONZALES Y TOLENTINO, DECEASED, LORETO ESGUERRA (GONZALES) MANGALIMAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. MANUEL I. GONZALES, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
ZALDIVAR, J.:
Appeal, on a question of law, from the order of
the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Special Proceedings No. 42412. This case is one of the many incidents in the
testamentary proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the late Alejandro
Gonzales y Tolentino.
Petitioner-Appellant Loreto Esguerra
(Gonzales) Mangaliman, an
illegitimate daughter of Alejandro Gonzales y Tolentino,
was given a legacy of one-eighth (1/8) undivided portion of the Hacienda
Evangelista located at Umingan, Pangasinan
having an area of 137 hectares. Because
she was a minor when her father died, petitioner’s share was placed under the
guardianship of her half-brother, Alejandro Gonzales, Jr., a legitimate son of
the testator.
Respondent-appellee Manuel I. Gonzales
is a legitimate son of the testator, and was for some time the administrator
of the estate. For the payment of the
services of said respondent as administrator, it was agreed on November 5, 1943 among the testator’s
widow and legitimate children that he would be paid the sum of P11,000.00. This
agreement was approved by the probate court on December 2, 1943.
Alleging that he had not been paid his fee of P11,000.00,
as provided in the compromise agreement, respondent filed before the probate
court a motion for execution on July
28, 1948, which motion was granted in an order issued by the court
on August 23, 1948. Eventually, on July 27, 1950 the Hacienda Evangelista, which had
previously been levied on execution, was sold by the sheriff to respondent for
the sum of P2,307.46.
The one-year redemption period having elapsed without petitioner’s
guardian having taken any step to redeem her undivided share of the hacienda,
the sheriff executed, on October 31,
1951, a final deed of sale in favor of respondent.
After coming of age, petitioner sought to recover her legacy by
filing a motion in the probate court to set aside the sale of the Hacienda
Evangelista. Having found, however,
that her guardian was duly notified of such sale, the court a quo
denied her motion on October 15, 1954. Petitioner did not appeal from this order, instead she filed an action in the Court of First
Instance of Manila against her former guardian for damages for the loss of her
share in the hacienda (Civil Case No. 25986).[1]
Much later, or in April, 1962, petitioner allegedly learned that
before the sale to respondent of the Hacienda Evangelista, including her
one-eighth undivided share thereof, said respondent had actually been paid for
his services as administrator an amount more than the P11,000.00 claimed by
him. Contending that respondent, through
fraud and misrepresentations had obtained the order of payment for his services
and the subsequent writs of execution which ultimately led to his acquisition
of the property, thereby enriching himself at her expense, petitioner, on April
21, 1962, filed a petition before the same probate court for the reconveyance to her of her one-eighth undivided share in
the Hacienda Evangelista by the respondent.
After the filing by respondent of his opposition, and the respective
memorandum of the parties herein, the probate court, on November 12, 1962, issued an order, as follows:
“After considering the petition for re-conveyance of Loreto Esguerra (Gonzales) Mangaliman,
dated April 21, 1962, and the opposition thereto, dated May 14, 1962, of Manuel
Gonzales, in support of which opposition said Manuel Gonzales filed his memorandum
on September 12, of this year, and in reply to which Loreto Esguerra
(Gonzales) Mangaliman filed hers on October 24, same
year, the Court is of the opinion that in as much as the question of title or
ownership is involved, said Manuel Gonzales may not be divested of his title
within these probate proceedings but in an independent suit filed with a
competent court.”
Hence the present appeal by the petitioner.
The only question to be resolved in this appeal is, whether or
not the Court of First Instance of Manila, as a probate court, has jurisdiction
to entertain petitioner’s petition for reconveyance.
We hold that the probate court has no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the petition for reconveyance, in
question. The remedy sought by
petitioner for the reconveyance to her of her share
in the Hacienda Evangelista upon the ground that the same was acquired by
respondent through fraud or misrepresentation cannot be obtained by a mere
petition in the probate proceedings. The
court of first instance, acting as a probate court, has limited jurisdiction
and can take cognizance only of “matters of probate, both testate and intestate
estates, * * * and all such special cases and proceedings as are not otherwise
provided for.”[2]
The jurisdiction of a probate court is limited and special, and this should be
understood to comprehend only cases related to those powers specified in the
law, and can not extend to the adjudication of collateral matters.3
The petition filed by petitioner before the probate court which
seemingly seeks merely the reconveyance to her of her
undivided share in a parcel of land which originally formed part of the estate
of her father in fact calls for the nullification, of the order of execution
issued by the probate court which is already final, and of the subsequent sale
of a property to respondent, upon the alleged ground of fraud. The defense interposed by respondent is that
petitioner’s action to recover the property is already barred by prescription, laches, and res judicata. The
petition for reconveyance has given rise to a
controversy involving rights over a real property which would require the presentation
of evidence and the determination of legal questions that should be ventilated
in a court of general jurisdiction.
We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, without
prejudice to petitioner-appellant’s filing an action in the proper court. No pronouncement as to costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Fernando, Teehankee, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Castro and Barredo, JJ., did not take part.
[1]
Trial of this case was suspended pending decision of the present incident.
[2] Sec. 44, par. (e), Republic Act 296. See Register of Deeds of Pampanga
v. Philippine National Bank, 84 Phil., 600, 607.