Aranas vs. Mercado, 713 SCRA 194, January 15, 2014, G.R. No.

156407
Civil Law; Succession
The assailed order of March 14, 2001 denying Teresitas motion for the approval of the inventory
and the order dated May 18, 2001 denying her motion for reconsideration were interlocutory.
This is because the inclusion of the properties in the inventory was not yet a final determination
of their ownership. Hence, the approval of the inventory and the concomitant determination
of the ownership as basis for inclusion or exclusion from the inventory were provisional
and subject to revision at anytime during the course of the administration proceedings.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure
An appeal would not be the correct recourse for Teresita, et al. to take against the assailed orders.
The final judgment rule embodied in the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of
Court, which also governs appeals in special proceedings, stipulates that only the
judgments, final orders (and resolutions) of a court of law that completely disposes of the
case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable may
be the subject of an appeal in due course. The same rule states that an interlocutory order or
resolution (interlocutory because it deals with preliminary matters, or that the trial on the merits
is yet to be held and the judgment rendered) is expressly made non-appealable.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure
Multiple appeals are permitted in special proceedings as a practical recognition of the
possibility that material issues may be finally determined at various stages of the special
proceedings. Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court enumerates the specific instances in
which multiple appeals may be resorted to in special proceedings, viz.: Section 1. Orders or
judgments from which appeals may be taken.An interested person may appeal in special
proceedings from an order or judgment rendered by a Court of First Instance or a Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court, where such order or judgment: (a) Allows or disallows a will; (b)
Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or the distributive share of the estate
to which such person is entitled; (c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against
the estate of a deceased person, or any claim presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a claim
against it; (d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian; (e)
Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, or the
administration of a trustee or guardian, a final determination in the lower court of the rights of
the party appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a special
administrator; and (f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the
substantial rights of the person appealing, unless it be an order granting or denying a motion for a
new trial or for reconsideration.
Civil Law; Succession;
Under Section 6(a), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the letters of administration may be
granted at the discretion of the court to the surviving spouse, who is competent and willing
to serve when the person dies intestate. Upon issuing the letters of administration to the
surviving spouse, the RTC becomes duty-bound to direct the preparation and submission of the
inventory of the properties of the estate, and the surviving spouse, as the administrator, has the

duty and responsibility to submit the inventory within three months from the issuance of letters
of administration pursuant to Rule 83 of the Rules of Court.
Civil Law; Succession;
The objective of the Rules of Court in requiring the inventory and appraisal of the estate of
the decedent is to aid the court in revising the accounts and determining the liabilities of
the executor or the administrator, and in making a final and equitable distribution
(partition) of the estate and otherwise to facilitate the administration of the estate. Hence,
the RTC that presides over the administration of an estate is vested with wide discretion on the
question of what properties should be included in the inventory. According to Peralta v. Peralta,
71 Phil. 66 (1940), the CA cannot impose its judgment in order to supplant that of the RTC on
the issue of which properties are to be included or excluded from the inventory in the absence of
positive abuse of discretion, for in the administration of the estates of deceased persons, the
judges enjoy ample discretionary powers and the appellate courts should not interfere with or
attempt to replace the action taken by them, unless it be shown that there has been a positive
abuse of discretion. As long as the RTC commits no patently grave abuse of discretion, its
orders must be respected as part of the regular performance of its judicial duty.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure;
There is no dispute that the jurisdiction of the trial court as an intestate court is special and
limited. The trial court cannot adjudicate title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate but
are claimed to belong to third parties by title adverse to that of the decedent and the estate, not by
virtue of any right of inheritance from the decedent. All that the trial court can do regarding said
properties is to determine whether or not they should be included in the inventory of properties to
be administered by the administrator. Such determination is provisional and may be still revised.
Remedial Law; Evidence;
The fact that the deed of absolute sale executed by Emigdio in favor of Mervir Realty was a
notarized instrument did not sufficiently justify the exclusion from the inventory of the
properties involved. A notarized deed of sale only enjoyed the presumption of regularity in
favor of its execution, but its notarization did not per se guarantee the legal efficacy of the
transaction under the deed, and what the contents purported to be. The presumption of
regularity could be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. As the Court has
observed in Suntay v. Court of Appeals: x x x. Though the notarization of the deed of sale in
question vests in its favor the presumption of regularity, it is not the intention nor the function of
the notary public to validate and make binding an instrument never, in the first place, intended to
have any binding legal effect upon the parties thereto. The intention of the parties still and
always is the primary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract.
Civil Law; Land Titles;
The fact that the properties were already covered by Torrens titles in the name of Mervir Realty
could not be a valid basis for immediately excluding them from the inventory in view of the
circumstances admittedly surrounding the execution of the deed of assignment. This is because:
The Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands; it is merely a system of
registration of titles to lands. However, justice and equity demand that the titleholder should
not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the States agents, in

the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third persons. The real
purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a stop forever to any question as to
the legality of the title, except claims that were noted in the certificate at the time of registration
or that may arise subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system shall forever
be sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration officials, who are ordinarily
presumed to have regularly performed their duties.
Civil Law; Succession;
Article 1061 of the Civil Code required every compulsory heir and the surviving spouse,
herein Teresita herself, to bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he
(or she) may have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of
donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the
determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition. Section 2,
Rule 90 of the Rules of Court also provided that any advancement by the decedent on the
legitime of an heir may be heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate
proceedings, and the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the
questions and on the heir. Rule 90 thereby expanded the special and limited jurisdiction of the
RTC as an intestate court about the matters relating to the inventory of the estate of the decedent
by authorizing it to direct the inclusion of properties donated or bestowed by gratuitous title to
any compulsory heir by the decedent.
Civil Law; Succession;
The determination of which properties should be excluded from or
included in the inventory of estate properties was well within the
authority and discretion of the RTC as an intestate court. In making its
determination, the RTC acted with circumspection, and proceeded under the guiding
policy that it was best to include all properties in the possession of the administrator
or were known to the administrator to belong to Emigdio rather than to exclude
properties that could turn out in the end to be actually part of the estate. As long as
the RTC commits no patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be respected
as part of the regular performance of its judicial duty. Grave abuse of discretion
means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary
or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the
respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to
perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such
judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a
capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.