NATCHER vs.

CA
G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001
By: Alpher Caingles

It is the probate court that has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution of the
estate. The court a quo, trying an ordinary action for reconveyance / annulment of title, went
beyond its jurisdiction when it performed the acts proper only in a special proceeding for the
settlement of estate of a deceased person.

May a Regional Trial Court, acting as a court of general jurisdiction in an action for reconveyance
annulment of title with damages, adjudicate matters relating to the settlement of the estate of a
deceased person particularly on questions as to advancement of property made by the decedent
to any of the heirs?

NO. Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines civil action and special
proceeding.

Applying these principles, an action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is a
civil action, whereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as
advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a special proceeding,
which concomitantly requires the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of
Court.

Clearly, matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of the decedent fall
within the exclusive province of the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.

Corollarily, the Regional Trial Court in the instant case, acting in its general jurisdiction, is
devoid of authority to render an adjudication and resolve the issue of advancement of the real
property in favor of herein petitioner Natcher, inasmuch as Civil Case No. 471075 for
reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is not, to our mind, the proper vehicle to
thresh out said question. Moreover, under the present circumstances, the RTC of Manila, Branch
55 was not properly constituted as a probate court so as to validly pass upon the question of
advancement made by the decedent Graciano Del Rosario to his wife, herein petitioner Natcher.
 CAMAYA vs. PATULANDONG
423 SCRA 480 February 23, 2004
By: Alpher Caingles

It is 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 that 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.

Won that the probate court has the power to annul the title to land subject of the estate
proceeding before it.

NO. The probate court does not have the power to annul the title to lands subject of a testate
proceeding pending before it. The probate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it further
declared the deed of sale and the titles of the Camayas null and void, it having had the effect of 
depriving them possession and ownership of the property.

A probate court 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 that said court could
do as regards such properties is to determine whether they should or should not be
included in the inventory.
 Heirs of Lasam v. Umengan
G.R. No. 168156, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 496
By: Alpher Caingles

Without having been probated, the last will and testament could not be the source of any right.

Whether or not the will of Isabel Cuntapay could be relied upon to establish the petitioner‘s right
to possess the subject lot.

No. The purported last will and testament of Isabel Cuntapay could not properly be relied upon
to establish petitioners‘ right to possess the subject lot because, without having been probated,
the said last will and testament could not be the source of any right.

Article 838 of the Civil Code is instructive:

“No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance
with the Rules of Court…..”

In Cañiza v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that: “[a] will is essentially ambulatory; at any time
prior to the testator‘s death, it may be changed or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has
no effect whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit: No will
shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the
Rules of Court.”
 MORALES vs. OLONDRIZ
G.R. No. 198994, February 3, 2016
By: Alpher Caingles

The RTC may pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will during probate proceedings.

Whether it was proper for the RTC to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will during probate
proceedings.

Yes. The general rule is that in probate proceedings, the scope of the court's inquiry is limited to
questions on the extrinsic validity of the will; the probate court will only determine the will's
formal validity and due execution. However, this rule is not inflexible and absolute. It is not
beyond the probate court's jurisdiction to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will when so
warranted by exceptional circumstances. When practical considerations demand that the
intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon even before it is probated, the probate court should
meet the issue.
 ARANAS vs. MERCADO
G.R. No. 156407, January 15, 2014
By: Alpher Caingles

The probate court may provisionally determine the issue of ownership.

Whether or not the probate court may provisionally determine the issue of ownership.

YES. The prevailing rule is that for the purpose of determining whether a certain property
should or should not be included in the inventory, the probate court may pass upon the title
thereto but such determination is not conclusive and is subject to the final decision in a separate
action regarding ownership which may be instituted by the parties.

The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership of properties for purposes
of their inclusion or exclusion from the inventory to be submitted by the administrator, but its
determination shall only be provisional unless the interested parties are all heirs of the
decedent, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the
assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired.
Its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of
the estate, such as the determination of the status of each heir and whether property included in
the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse.