R73 10. 19 Feb 1991 – Anselmo sold the lot to the Sps Camaya.
19 Feb 1991 – Anselmo sold the lot to the Sps Camaya. A new TCT was issued under
Camaya vs Patulandong
Carpio-Morales
Grandma made a will that stated a parcel of land would be for her grandson. Later on, she
amended it via codicil which split the lot equally between grandson and 4 of her kids.
Grandson had it partitioned without prejudice to the probate of the codicil, and then sold
the property to the Sps Camaya. RTC admitted codicil to probate, then also held that the
Deed of Abs Sale to the Camayas was void, among other things. SC said that no, doing
this went beyond the probate court’s limited jurisdiction.
DOCTRINE
A probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot
adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are
equally claimed to belong to outside parties. All that said court could do as regards said
properties is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or
list of properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is no dispute, well and
good; but if there is, then the parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties have to
resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title
because the probate court cannot do so.
{No wonder court dockets are so clogged.}
FACTS
1. Nov. 17,197 - Rufina Reyes {testatrix} executed a notarized will. In that will she left Lot
288 to her grandson Anselmo Mangulabnan and appointed her son, Bernardo
Patulandong as the executor.
2. During her lifetime, Rufina filed a petition for the probate of her will before the then Court
of First Instance (CFI) of Nueva Ecija where it was docketed as Sp. Pro. No. 128.
3. 11 January 1972 – CFI admitted the will to probate.
4. 27 June 1973 – Rufina executed a codicil modifying her will. In it, instead of leaving the
whole thing to Anselmo, she ended up dividing the lot equally between Anselmo and 4 of
her children {Bernardo included}
5. Anselmo later sought the delivery to him by executor Bernardo of the title to Lot 288-A.
Bernardo refused to heed the request, however, in view of the codicil which modified the
testators will.
6. Anselmo filed a case for partition against Bernardo at the RTD Gapan, Nueva Ecija. The
RTC ordered the lot to be partitioned, but w/o prejudice to the probate of the codicil.
7. 17 July 1989 – Anselmo filed before the RTC Nueva Ecija a petition[5] for probate of the
codicil of the testatrix, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 218.
8. 28 Dec 1989 - the probate court issued an Order setting the petition for hearing and
ordering the publication of said order.
9. 7 Feb 1991 – based on the decision in the partition case, Anselmo had the TCT under
Rufina’s name cancelled and a new one issued in his name.
their name.
11. 16 Jan 1996 -RTC rendered its decision, admitting the codicil to probate in Sp Proc No.
218. It also held Anselmo’s Deed of Absolute Sale to the Camayas as Null and Void, and
ordered the cancellation of Anselmo and the Camaya’s TCTs. Also ordered the reissue of
the corresponding TCTs to the five people named in the codicil.
12. Camayas {as intervenors} and Anselmo’s MR denied. They filed an appeal to the CA,
but the CA affirmed the RTC ruling.
13. Hence, the present petition for Review on Certiorari with the SC.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. Whether the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared null and void
and ordered the cancellation of the TCTs of petitioners and the deed of sale
SC: YES.
Cuizon vs Ramolete: It is well-settled rule that a probate court or one in charge
of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title
to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are equally claimed to
belong to outside parties. All that said court could do as regards said
properties is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the
inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is
no dispute, well and good; but if there is, then the parties, the administrator,
and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action for a final
determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate court cannot
do so.
Having been apprised of the fact that the property in question was in the possession
of third parties and more important, covered by a transfer certificate of title issued in
the name of such third parties, the respondent court should have denied the motion of
the respondent administrator and excluded the property in question from the inventory
of the property of the estate. It had no authority to deprive such third persons of their
possession and ownership of the property.
Following Cuizon, the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it further declared
the deed of sale and the titles of petitioners null and void, it having had the effect of
depriving them possession and ownership of the property.
Moreover, following Section 48 of the Property Registry Decree which reads:
SECTION 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. - A certificate of title shall not
be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a
direct proceeding in accordance with law,
Petitioners titles cannot, under probate proceedings, be declared null and void.
2. 2. Whether the final judgment in the partition case bars the allowance of the
codicil.
1
 SC: The TC specified that the ruling is without prejudice to the probate for the codicil.
Anyway, no need to rule upon Camayas’ argument that they were innocent
purchasers for value since the probate court has no authority to rule on the validity of
their titles.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED IN PART.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 19, 2000 in CA-G.R. CV No. 53757
affirming the January 16, 1996 Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, of Gapan,
Nueva Ecija, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

The decision allowing the codicil is AFFIRMED, but the 1) declaration as null and void of
Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-215750 issued on February 7, 1991 by the Register of
Deeds of Nueva Ecija in the name of Anselmo Mangulabnan, the February 19, 1991 Deed
of Absolute Sale executed by him in favor of the intervenors - herein petitioners Carolina,
Ferdinand and Edgardo Camaya, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-216446 issued
on March 18, 1991 in favor of the petitioners Camayas, and 2) the order for the Register of
Deeds of Nueva Ecija to cancel Transfer of Certificate of Title Nos. NT-215750 and NT-
216446 and reissue the corresponding Certificate of Titles to Bernardo R. Patulandong,
Juan R. Patulandong, Guillerma R. Patulandong Linsangan, Simplicia R. Patulandong
Mangulabnan, and Anselmo Mangulabnan to the extent of one-fifth (1/5) each pursuant to
the approved codicil are SET ASIDE, without prejudice to respondent and his co-heirs
ventilation of their right in an appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.

Vitug, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona, JJ., concur.

OTHER NOTES
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque ac erat placerat turpis
suscipit congue id quis erat. Curabitur lobortis metus ut purus venenatis…

DIGESTER: Hil