BAYBAYAN vs.

AQUINO, 149 SCRA 186 (1987)

FACTS:
The respondents filed a petition for summary settlement of the estate of Vincent
Oria. The probate court issued an order adjudicating the estate to the heirs of the
decedent. However, when a representative of the private respondents went to
cultivate the portion adjudicated to them, he was prevented by Jose Diaz and
Cipriano Evangelista. As a consequence, petitioners filed a complaint for the
quieting of title, plus damages and to refrain the defendants from enforcing the writ
of execution.
Meanwhile, the probate court found that the property in the question was registered
in the names of the petitioners. the same court ordered the petitioners to amend
their complaint to determine whether lot E is part of the decedents estate
inasmuch as it is now the property claimed by Baybayan covered by a TCT. Pursuant
thereto, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion amending the complaint and dropping
some defendants. the judge however, found that it did not comply with his order
and dismissed the case. Petitioners now contend that the judge has no authority to
dismiss the case because the order to amend the complaint was issued in
connection with Special Proceeding 24-R, where they were not even parties.

ISSUE/S:
Whether the petitioners are bound by the judges ruling.

HELD:
YES. The parties voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the probate
court when they filed Omnibus Motion in Civil Case 231-R, praying for leave to
amend their complaint in accordance with the order of the probate court. They
cannot be allowed to adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of
the judge to whom they submitted their cause voluntarily.
The findings of the judge as to the ownership of Lot E do not justify the order to
amend the complaint since the determination of the ownership of the said lot by the
judge presiding over a court exercising probate jurisdiction is not final or ultimate in
nature and is without prejudice to the right of an interested party to raise the
question of ownership in a proper action.
When questions arise as to ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate
of a deceased person, by the adverse party to that of the deceased and his estate,

such questions cannot be determined in the courts of administrative proceedings.

The CFI, acting as a probate court, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions
which must be submitted to the CFI in the exercise of its general jurisdiction as a
court of first instance.
The order to amend the complaint did not specify what the amendments should be
or how the complaint should be amended so that the petitioners could not be
faulted. Thus, the petition for certiorari to review the lower court order is granted