You are on page 1of 2

AGTARAP vs.

AGTARAP

G.R. No. 177099

FACTS: Joaquin Agtarap died intestate on November 21, 1964. During his lifetime, Joaquin contracted
two marriages, first with Lucia Garcia (W1) and second with Caridad Garcia (W2). At the time of his
death, Joaquin left two parcels of land with improvements in Pasay City. Joseph, grandson from W1, had
been leasing and improving said realties and had been appropriating for himself P26k per month since
April 1994.

On Sept. 1994, Eduardo filed with the RTC of Pasay City, a verified petition for the judicial settlement of
the estate of his decease father Joaquin and to appoint him as special administrator. Grandchildren from
W1 opposed alleging that the two subject lots belong to the conjugal partnership of Joaquin and W1 and
as such, upon death of Lucia, they become pro-indiviso owners of the subject properties. The RTC
issued resolution appointing Eduardo as a regular administrator of Joaquins Estate. Further, the RTC
directed partition of Joaquins estate to reflect the correct sharing of the heirs. It also declared that the
real properties belonged to the conjugal partnership of Joaquin and W1.

ISSUES: 1. W/N the court as intestate court has jurisdiction to determine questions of ownership that
arise during the proceedings?

2. W/N the subject properties were owned by Joaquin and Caridad since the TCTs state that the lots
registered in the name of Joaquin, married to Caridad?
3. W/N estates of other heirs may be settled together with the settlement of the estate of Joaquin?
4. W/N the court may distribute Joaquins estate pertinent to the share allotted to Milagros when
there is a separate proceeding for the probate of her will?

HELD: 1. General rule, no, but this case falls on the exception.

2. No.
3. Yes.
4. No.

RATIO: 1. The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as probate or an intestate court,
relates only to matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of
deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during
the proceedings. However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as justified by expediency and
convenience. First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate proceeding
the question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to the
final determination of ownership in a separate action. Second, if interested parties are all heirs to the
estate, 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, then the probate court is
competent to resolve issues on ownership.

2. Simple possession of a certificate of title is not necessarily conclusive of a holders true ownership of
property. A certificate of title under the Torrens system aims to protect dominion; it cannot be used as an
instrument for the deprivation of ownership. Thus, the fact that the properties were registered in the name
of Joaquin Agtarap, married to Caridad Garcia, is not sufficient proof that the properties were acquired
during the spouses coverture. The phrase married to Caridad Garcia in the TCTs is merely descriptive of
the civil status of Joaquin as the registered owner, and does not necessarily prove that the realties are
their conjugal properties.
3. The Court held that the settlement of the respective estates of other heirs together with Joaquins estate
is proper. This is because the disposition of properties relates only to the settlement of estate of Joaquin.
The distribution of shares of other estates was merely a necessary consequence of the settlement of
Joaquins estate.

4. We agree with Eduardos position that the CA erred in distributing Joaquins estate pertinent to the
share allotted in favor of Milagros. Eduardo was able to show that a separate proceeding was instituted
for the probate of the will allegedly executed by Milagros before the RTC, Branch 108, Pasay City. While
there has been no showing that the alleged will of Milagros, bequeathing all of her share from Joaquins
estate in favor of Eduardo, has already been probated and approved, prudence dictates that this Court
refrain from distributing Milagros share in Joaquins estate.

W1 Jesus (dead); Milagros; and Jose (dead)

Jose Gloria; Joseph; and Teresa (children)

W2 Eduardo; Sebastian; and Mercedes (dead)

Mercedes Cecile (daughter); Abelardo Dagoro (husband)

ESTATE: 14,177,500/2 = 7,088,750 (equal)

1. JOSE
2. MILAGROS
3. MERCEDES
4. SEBASTIAN
5. EDUARDO
6. CARIDAD

Share of Milagros (equal) died 1996:

1. Teresa
2. Joseph
3. Walter
4. Sebastian
5. Eduardo

JOSE (equal) died in 1967:

1. Gloria
2. Joseph
3. Teresa
4. Priscilla

You might also like