1/30/2017 CamayavsCarpioMorales:144915:February23,2004:J.

CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.144915.February23,2004]

CAROLINACAMAYA,FERDINANDCAMAYA,EDGARDOCAMAYAandANSELMO
MANGULABNAN,petitioners,vs.BERNARDOPATULANDONG,respondent.

DECISION
CARPIOMORALES,J.:

BeforethisCourtisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe1997RevisedRulesof
CourtseekingthereversaloftheCourtofAppealsDecisiondatedJune19,2000inCAG.R.CVNo.
53757,Inre:PetitionfortheProbateoftheCodicil(Will)ofRufinaReyesBernardoPatulandongv.
AnselmoMangulabnanv.CarolinaG.Camaya,FerdinandCamayaandEdgardoCamaya.
OnNovember17,1972,RufinaReyes(testatrix)executedanotarizedwillwhereinshedevised,
amongothers,LotNo.288AtohergrandsonAnselmoMangulabnan(Mangulabnan).Thepertinent
portionofherwillreads:

IKALIMA.Akinginihahayagatginagawanatagapagmana,saakingkusangloob,angpinalakikong
APOnasiANSELMOP.MANGULABNAN,maysapatnagulang,kasalkayFloraUmagap,atnaninirahan
saSanLorenzo,Gapan,NuevaEcija,atanakngakinganaknasiSIMPLICIA,atsaakingAPOnasi
ANSELMOayakingipinagkakaloobatipinamamana,saakingpagkamatay,angmgasumusunodkong
pagaari:

LOTNO.TITLENO.KINALALAGYANNABANGGITSA

288ANT47089Sta.Cruz(1)p.2
3348A100629Poblacion(2)p.2
3349B100630Poblacion(3)p.2

xxx[1](Underscoringintheoriginalemphasissupplied)

The testatrixs son Bernardo Patulandong (Patulandong), respondent herein, was in the will
appointedastheexecutor.
Duringherlifetime,thetestatrixherselffiledapetitionfortheprobateofherwillbeforethethen
CourtofFirstInstance(CFI)ofNuevaEcijawhereitwasdocketedasSp.Pro.No.128.
ByOrder[2]ofJanuary11,1973,theCFIadmittedthewilltoprobate.
OnJune27,1973,thetestatrixexecutedacodicilmodifyingabovequotedparagraphfiveofher
willinthiswise:

UNA.AngLoteNo.288AnanakalagaysabarriongSta.Cruz,Gapan,NuevaEcija,magsukat36,384metro
cuadrados,atnagtataglayngTCTNo.NT47089,naakingipinamanasaakingapongsiANSELMOP.
MANGULABNAN,sangayonsaPangkatIKALIMA,pp.56,ngakingHULINGHABILIN(Testamento),ay
ipinasiyakongipagkaloobatipamanasaakingmgaanaknasinaBERNARDO,SIMPLICIA,
GUILLERMAatJUANnagaapellidongPATULANDONG,atsaakingapongsiANSELMOP.
MANGULABNAN,samagkakaparehongbahaginatigikalimangbahagibawatisasakanila.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/144915.htm 1/5
1/30/2017 CamayavsCarpioMorales:144915:February23,2004:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

IKALAWA.Namalibansapagbabagongito,anglahatngmgatadhanangakingHULINGHABILINayaking
pinagtitibaynamuli.

xxx[3](Underscoringintheoriginalemphasissupplied)OnMay14,1988,thetestatrixdied.

MangulabnanlatersoughtthedeliverytohimbyexecutorPatulandongofthetitletoLot288A.
Patulandongrefusedtoheedtherequest,however,inviewofthecodicilwhichmodifiedthetestators
will.
MangulabnanthusfiledanactionforpartitionagainstPatulandongwiththeRegionalTrialCourtof
Gapan,NuevaEcija,docketedasCivilCaseNo.552(thepartitioncase).
OnJune8,1989,thetrialcourtrenderedadecisioninthepartitioncase,[4]thedispositiveportion
ofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE,thecourtordersthepartitioningofthepropertiesandthedefendanttodeliverthecopyofthe
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.NT47089.

However,inviewofthecasecitedbytheplaintiffhimself,thecourtholdsthatthepartitioniswithout
prejudice[to]...theprobateofthecodicilinaccordancewiththeRulesofCourt,[P]alaciosvs.Catimbang
Palacioscitedbytheplaintiff:

Afterawillhasbeenprobatedduringthelifetimeofthetestator,itdoesnotnecessarilymeanthathecannotalter
orrevokethesamebeforehisdeath.Shouldhemakeanewwill,itwouldalsobeallowableofhispetitionandif
heshoulddiebeforehehadachancetopresentsuchpetition,theordinaryprobateproceedingsafterthetestators
deathwouldbeinorder.

TheCourtalsoordersthattherightofthetenantsoftheagriculturallandinquestionshouldbeprotected
meaningtosaythatthetenantsshouldnotbeejected.(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

OnJuly17,1989PatulandongfiledbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofNuevaEcijaapetition[5]for
probateofthecodicilofthetestatrix,docketedasSp.Proc.No.218.
OnDecember28,1989,theprobatecourtissuedanOrder[6]settingthepetition for hearing and
orderingthepublicationofsaidorder.
On February 7, 1991, by virtue of the decision in the partition case, Mangulabnan caused the
cancellationofthetitleofthetestatrixoverLotNo.288AandTCTNo.NT215750[7]wasissuedinhis
name.
Mangulabnan later sold to herein petitioners Camayas Lot No. 288A by a Deed of Sale dated
February19,1991.[8]TCTNo.NT215750wasthuscancelledandTCTNo.NT216446[9]wasissued
inthenameoftheCamayas.
OnJanuary16,1996,thetrialrenderedadecision[10]inSp.Proc.No.218admittingthecodicilto
probateanddisposingasfollows:

WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedinthefollowingmanner:

1.DeclaringTransferCertificateofTitleNo.NT215750issuedbytheRegisterofDeedsofNueva
EcijainthenameofAnselmoMangulabnandatedFebruary7,1991andtheDeedofAbsolute
SaleexecutedbyhiminfavoroftheintervenorsCarolina,FerdinandandEdgardo,allsurnamed
CamayaonFebruary19,1991andTransferCertificateofTitleNo.NT216446underdateMarch
18,1991issuedinthenamesoftheabovenamedintervenorsasNULLandVOIDandofno
forceandeffectand,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/144915.htm 2/5
1/30/2017 CamayavsCarpioMorales:144915:February23,2004:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

2.OrderingtheRegisterofDeedsofNuevaEcijatocancelTransferofCertificateofTitleNos.NT
215750andNT216446andreissuethecorrespondingCertificateofTitlestoBernardoR.
Patulandong,Filipino,marriedtoGorgoniaMarianoresidingatSanVicente,Gapan,Nueva
Ecija,JuanR.Patulandong,Filipino,widowerandresidingatSanLorenzo,Gapan,NuevaEcija
GuillermaR.PatulandongLinsanganoflegalage,Filipino,widowandresidingatSanVicente,
Gapan,NuevaEcija,SimpliciaR.PatulandongMangulabnan,oflegalage,widow,andresiding
atSanLorenzo,Gapan,NuevaEcijaandhergrandson,AnselmoMangulabnanwithfullpersonal
circumstancesstatedhereintotheextentofonefifth(1/5)eachpursuanttotheapprovedcodicil
(will)ofRufinaReyesdatedJune27,1973.[11]

TheCamayaswhohadbeenallowedtointerveneinSp.Proc.No.218,andMangulabnan,fileda
Motion for Reconsideration of the abovesaid decision but it was denied by Order[12] of February
28,1996.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Camayas and Mangulabnan (hereinafter referred to as
petitioners)raisedthefollowingerrors:
1.THEREWERESERIOUSSUBSTANTIALDEPARTURESFROMTHEFORMALITIESREQUIRED
BY THE RULES, THE LAW, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SETTINGASAPROBATECOURT.
2. THE OPPOSITOR DID NOT ONLY ACQUIRE LOT NO. 288A BY WILL BUT HE ALSO
ACQUIRED THE SAME BY PARTITION IN A CIVIL CASE WHERE THE DECISION HAS
ALREADYREACHEDITSFINALITYANDTHEREFORECANNOLONGERBENEGATEDBYA
QUESTIONABLECODICIL.
3. THAT THE SUBJECT LOT 288A IS NO LONGER WITHIN THE REACHED (sic) OF THE
PETITIONER CONSIDERING THAT THE OPPOSITOR VENDOR HAD A CLEAN TITLE AND
THAT THE INTERVENORSVENDEED HAD ACQUIRED THE SAME BY WAY OF SALE AS
INNOCENTPURCHASERINGOODFAITHANDFORVALUE.[13]
ByDecision[14]ofJune19,2000,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedthatofthetrialcourt.
Hence,thepresentpetitionforReviewonCertiorariprofferingthefollowingissues:
1.Whether the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared null and void and ordered the
cancellationoftheTCTsofpetitionersandthedeedofsaleand
2.WhetherthefinaljudgmentinCivilCaseNo.552barstheallowanceofthecodicil.
Astothefirstissue,petitionerscontendthattheunderthelaw,theprobatecourthasnopower,
authority, and jurisdiction to declare null and void the sale and titles of petitioners[15] and that the
probatecourtcanonlyresolvethefollowingissues:
1. Whether or not the instrument which is offered for probate is the last will and testament of the
decedentinotherwords,thequestionisoneofidentity[]
2.Whether or not the will has been executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law in
otherwords,thequestionisoneofdueexecution[and]
3.Whetherthetestatorhadtestamentarycapacityatthetimeoftheexecutionofthewillinotherwords,
thequestionisoneofcapacity.[16]
InCuizonv.Ramolete,[17]thisCourtelucidatedonthelimitedjurisdictionofaprobatecourt,towit:

Itiswellsettledrulethataprobatecourtoroneinchargeofproceedingswhethertestateorintestate
cannotadjudicateordeterminetitletopropertiesclaimedtobeapartoftheestateandwhichareequally
claimedtobelongtooutsideparties.Allthatsaidcourtcoulddoasregardssaidpropertiesistodetermine
whethertheyshouldorshouldnotbeincludedintheinventoryorlistofpropertiestobeadministeredbythe
administrator.Ifthereisnodispute,wellandgoodbutifthereis,thentheparties,theadministrator,and
theopposingpartieshavetoresorttoanordinaryactionforafinaldeterminationoftheconflictingclaims
oftitlebecausetheprobatecourtcannotdoso.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/144915.htm 3/5
1/30/2017 CamayavsCarpioMorales:144915:February23,2004:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision

xxx

Havingbeenapprisedofthefactthatthepropertyinquestionwasinthepossessionofthirdpartiesandmore
important,coveredbyatransfercertificateoftitleissuedinthenameofsuchthirdparties,therespondentcourt
shouldhavedeniedthemotionoftherespondentadministratorandexcludedthepropertyinquestionfromthe
inventoryofthepropertyoftheestate.Ithadnoauthoritytodeprivesuchthirdpersonsoftheirpossession
andownershipoftheproperty.xxx(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

FollowingCuizon,theprobatecourtexceededitsjurisdictionwhenitfurtherdeclaredthedeedof
saleandthetitlesofpetitionersnullandvoid,ithavinghadtheeffectofdeprivingthempossession
andownershipoftheproperty.
Moreover,followingSection48ofthePropertyRegistryDecreewhichreads:

SECTION48.Certificatenotsubjecttocollateralattack.Acertificateoftitleshallnotbesubjecttocollateral
attack.Itcannotbealtered,modified,orcancelledexceptinadirectproceedinginaccordancewithlaw,

petitionerstitlescannot,underprobateproceedings,bedeclarednullandvoid.
As to the second issue, petitioners argue that by allowing the codicil to probate, it in effect
amended the final judgment in the partition case which is not allowed by law[18] and that petitioner
Camayas are innocent purchasers for value and enjoy the legal presumption that the transfer was
lawful.[19]
Petitionersfirstargumentdoesnotpersuade.
Thoughthejudgmentinthepartitioncasehadbecomefinalandexecutoryasitwasnotappealed,
it specifically provided in its dispositive portion that the decision was without prejudice [to] ... the
probate of the codicil. The rights of the prevailing parties in said case were thus subject to the
outcomeoftheprobateofthecodicil.
Theprobatecourtbeingbereftofauthoritytoruleuponthevalidityofpetitionerstitles,thereisno
longer any necessity to dwell on the merits of petitioners Camayas claim that they are innocent
purchasersforvalueandenjoythelegalpresumptionthatthetransferwaslawful.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTEDINPART.
TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedJune19,2000inCAG.R.CVNo.53757affirmingthe
January 16, 1996 Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, is hereby
AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION.
ThedecisionallowingthecodicilisAFFIRMED,butthe1)declarationasnullandvoidofTransfer
Certificate of Title No. NT215750 issued on February 7, 1991 by the Register of Deeds of Nueva
EcijainthenameofAnselmoMangulabnan,theFebruary19,1991DeedofAbsoluteSaleexecuted
byhiminfavoroftheintervenorshereinpetitionersCarolina,FerdinandandEdgardoCamaya,and
Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT216446 issued on March 18, 1991 in favor of the petitioners
Camayas,and2)theorderfortheRegisterofDeedsofNuevaEcijatocancelTransferofCertificate
of Title Nos. NT215750 and NT216446 and reissue the corresponding Certificate of Titles to
Bernardo R. Patulandong, Juan R. Patulandong, Guillerma R. Patulandong Linsangan, Simplicia R.
PatulandongMangulabnan,andAnselmoMangulabnantotheextentofonefifth(1/5)eachpursuant
totheapprovedcodicilareSETASIDE,withoutprejudicetorespondentandhiscoheirsventilationof
theirrightinanappropriateaction.
SOORDERED.
Vitug,(Chairman),SandovalGutierrez,andCorona,JJ.,concur.

[1]Recordsat910.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/144915.htm 4/5
1/30/2017 CamayavsCarpioMorales:144915:February23,2004:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision
[2]Id.at1314.

[3]Id.at1516.

[4]Id.at2936.

[5]Id.at12.

[6]Id.at23.

[7]Rolloat88.

[8]VideEntryNo.7816/NT216446inscribedinTCTNo.NT215750Rolloat88.

[9]Rolloat89.

[10]Recordsat244248.

[11]Id.at248.

[12]Id.at271.

[13]CourtofAppeals(CA)Rolloat4041.

[14]Rolloat720.

[15]Id.at30.

[16]Id.at31.

[17]129SCRA495(1984).

[18]Rolloat34.

[19]Id.at3536.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/144915.htm 5/5