FACTS
Esteban Javellana, Jr., a bachelor who died without descendants, ascendants, brothers, sisters, nephews, or nieces, left an estate consisting largely of properties inherited from his mother, Salustia Solivio. His surviving relatives were his maternal aunt, Celedonia Solivio, and his paternal aunt, Concordia Javellana-Villanueva. During his lifetime, Esteban had expressed his desire to establish a foundation in his mother's name to help poor but deserving students. After his death, Celedonia and Concordia agreed to carry out this plan.
Pursuant to their agreement, Celedonia initiated Special Proceeding No. 2540 for the settlement of Esteban's estate. She was appointed administratrix and later filed a petition to be declared the sole heir. On April 3, 1978, the probate court declared Celedonia the sole legal heir. Celedonia subsequently sold some estate properties to pay the deceased's obligations and established the Salustia Solivio Vda. de Javellana Foundation, which was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Concordia later filed a motion for reconsideration of the order declaring Celedonia the sole heir, claiming that she was also an heir of Esteban. The probate court denied the motion for having been filed late. Instead of appealing that order, Concordia subsequently filed Civil Case No. 13207 before another branch of the same Regional Trial Court for partition, recovery of ownership and possession, and damages. The trial court ruled in Concordia's favor and ordered the estate divided equally between her and Celedonia. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
Celedonia then appealed to the Supreme Court. She questioned, among others, whether the second RTC branch had jurisdiction to entertain Concordia's separate action while the settlement proceedings involving the same estate were still pending before another branch of the RTC.
ISSUE
The first issue was whether Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain Concordia's separate action for partition and recovery of her share in Esteban Javellana, Jr.'s estate while the settlement proceedings were still pending before Branch 23.
The second issue was whether Concordia's remedy was to seek relief within the pending probate proceedings rather than institute a separate action before another branch of the same court.
The third issue was whether the probate court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the estate until the administration had been completed, the residue distributed, and the proceedings terminated.
HELD
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and held that Branch 26 lacked jurisdiction to entertain Concordia's separate action for partition and recovery while the probate proceedings remained pending before Branch 23. The Court found that there were still no orders approving the administratrix's inventory and accounting, distributing the residue of the estate to the heirs, and terminating the administration proceedings.
The Court explained that it is the order of distribution directing delivery of the residue to the persons entitled to it that brings intestate proceedings to a close and terminates the administrator's duties. The order declaring Celedonia the sole heir did not terminate the proceedings because the same order expressly directed her, as administratrix, to proceed with the settlement of the estate.
The Court held that Concordia's motion to set aside the order declaring Celedonia the sole heir and to have herself declared a co-heir was properly filed in the pending special proceeding. When that motion was denied, her remedy was to elevate the denial for appellate review, rather than file a separate action before another branch of the court. The probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution of the estate.
The Court emphasized that a court should not interfere with probate proceedings pending before a co-equal court, in order to avoid conflicting dispositions and multiplicity of suits. A separate action for the declaration of heirs or recovery of an estate share is improper while the probate proceedings remain pending. The proper procedure is to seek the desired relief through a motion in the same probate or administration proceeding, or, if already closed, through reopening of that proceeding when legally proper.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the separate action filed by Concordia was improperly filed, and the judgment rendered by Branch 26 and affirmed by the Court of Appeals could not stand
No comments:
Post a Comment