CUIZON v.
RAMOLETE the property of Irene including the salt beds
GR No. L-51291
May 29, 1984
Topic: Probate Proceedings; Orders
Of
Inclusion Or Exclusion Of Properties
From
Administrators Inventory Are
Provisional,
Not Final
Doctrine: Probate court cannot
adjudicate
or determine title to properties claimed to
be part of the estate and equally claimed
to
belong to outside parties.
Synopsis: In the instant case, the property
involved is not only claimed by outside
parties but it was sold seven years before
the death of the decedent and is duly titled
in the name of the vendees who are not
party to the proceedings.
Facts:
On 1961, Marciano Cuizon applied
for the registration of several parcels of
land in Mandaue City docketed as L.R. Case
No. N-179. In 1970, he distributed his
property between his two daughters, Rufina
and Irene, to whom the salt beds subject of
the controversy was given. In 1971, Irene
executed a Deed of Sale with Reservation of
Usufruct involving the said salt beds in favor
of petitioners Franciso et al.
Although the decision in L.R. Case
No. N-179 was rendered way back in 1972,
the decree of registration and the
corresponding O.C.T. was issued only in
1976 in the name of Marciano Cuizon. In
that same year, T.C.T No. 10477 covering
the property in question was issued to Irene.
The latter died in 1978.
During the extrajudicial settlement
of the estate, Rufina, the mother of
Francisco et al., adjudicated to herself all
GR No. L-51291
Page 1 of 2
in question. She then executed a deed of
Confirmation of Sale wherein she confirmed
and ratified the 1971 deed of sale and
renounced and waived whatever rights and
interests and participation she may have in
the property in question in favor of the
petitioners. The deed was annotated in
T.C.T. No. 10477. Subsequently, T.C.T. No.
12665 was issued in favor of the petitioners.
On September 28, 1978, a petition
for letters of administrator was filed before
the CFI of Cebu by respondent Domingo
Antigua, allegedly selected by the heirs of
Irene to act administrator. The petition was
granted.
In Respondent Antigua as
administrator filed an inventory of the
estate of Irene. He included in the inventory
the property in question, which was being
administered by Juan Arche, one of the
petitioners. He filed a motion asking the
court for authority to sell the salt from the
property and praying that petitioner Arche
be ordered to deliver the salt to the
administrator. The motion was granted by
the court.
Issue:
Whether a probate court has
jurisdiction over parcels of land already
covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title
issued in favor of owners who are not
parties to the intestate proceedings if the
said parcels have been included in the
inventory of properties of the estate
prepared by the administrator.
Ruling:
No. It is a well-settled rule 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 equally claimed to belong to
outside parties. All said court could do is to
determine whether they should or should
not be included in the inventory of
properties to be administered by the
administrator. If there is dispute, then 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.
In the instant case, the property
involved is not only claimed by outside
parties but it was sold seven years before
the death of the decedent and is duly titled
in the name of the vendees who are not
party to the proceedings.
In Bolisay v. Alcid, the Court held
that if a property covered by Torrens Title
is involved, the presumptive conclusiveness
of such title should be given due weight,
and in the absence of strong compelling
evidence to the contrary, the holder thereof
should be considered as the owner of the
property in controversy until his title is
nullified or modified in an appropriate
ordinary action.
Having been apprised of the fact
that the property in question was covered
by a TCT issued in the name of third parties,
the respondent court should have denied
the motion of the respondent administrator
and excluded the property in question from
the inventory of the property of the estate.

GR No. L-51291
Page 2 of 2