Reyes v reyes

The spouses Ismael and Felisa Reyes owned two parcels of land (Lot A and Lot B)
collectively referred to as the Arayat properties located in Arayat, Cubao, Quezon
City.
In 1973, Ismael died intestate. He was survived by his wife Felisa, his children Oscar
Reyes, Cesar Reyes, and five other children. Before his death however, Lot A was
forfeited in favor of the government due to his failure to pay the tax.
In 1976, Oscar was able to redeem the said property.
In 1982, Lot B was also forfeited again in favor of the government due to Felisas
failure to pay taxes. In 1986, Oscar was again able to redeem Lot B.
In 1989, Cesar (brother of Oscar) filed a petition to be the administrator of the
estate of Ismael which consists of the 50% of the Arayat properties. Oscar filed his
opposition thereto on the ground that the estate Ismael was no longer the owner of
the said properties and that in fact Oscar became the owner because he was the
one who redeemed the Arayat properties; that the other heirs abandoned their
shares; that Cesars petition was filed belatedly because he only filed it 16 years
after the death of their father.
The probate court however allowed the petition of Cesar and approved the inclusion
of the Arayat properties into the estate of Ismael.
ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the probate court is proper.
HELD: Yes. The jurisdiction of the probate court merely relates to matters having to
do with the settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of deceased persons,
and the appointment and removal of administrators, executors, guardians and
trustees. The question of ownership is as a rule, an extraneous matter which the
Probate Court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining
whether a certain property should or should not be included in the inventory of
estate proceeding, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto, but such
determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a
separate action to resolve title.
The foregoing rule however provides for an exception, that is: if the claimant and all
other parties having legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to
the submission of the question to the Probate Court for adjudgment, or the interests
of third persons are not thereby prejudiced. In this case, not all parties, not all heirs,
gave their consent to the probate court.