17 Camaya vs.

Patulandon
G.R. No. 144915 (February 23, 2004)
Carpio-Morales, J. / kam

Subject Matter: Rule 73 - Venue and Process

Summary: Testatrix Reyes’ notarized will, which was already admitted to probate during her lifetime, devised Lot No. 288-A
to her grandson Anselmo Mangulabnan. Afterwards, she executed a codicil which devises the same lot to her four children and
grandson Mangulabnan (1/5 part each). Then testatrix died. Mangulabnan filed an action for partition and asked the court to
issue the TCT of the lot in his name. The court granted the petition, without prejudice to the probate of the codicil. Then
testatrix’s son and executor, Bernardo Patulandong, submitted the codicil for probate. While the probate proceedings was
ongoing, Mangulabnan sold the lot to the Camayas, resulting to a new TCT being issued in the Camayas’ name.

Probate court dealing with the probate of the codicil caused the ff: (1) TCT in Mangulabnan’s name to be cancelled; (2)
nullified the deed of absolute sale between Mangulabnan and the Camayas; and (3) caused the register of deeds to reissue TCT
in the name of the five devisees in the codicil. CA affirmed the RTC / probate court’s decision. SC held that the probate court
exceeded its jurisdiction, as probate courts cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of the estate
and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties.

Doctrine:
A probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of the estate and which are
equally claimed to belong to outside parties. - It is a 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.

Parties:
Petitioners Carolina Camaya, Ferdinand Camaya, Edgardo Camaya and Anselmo Mangulabnan
Respondent Bernardo Patulandong

Facts: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

First Notarized Will

 Nov. 17, 1972 – Testatrix Rufina Reyes executed a notarized will wherein she devised Lot No. 288-A, among others,
to her grandson whom she raised, Anselmo Mangulabnan (son of testatrix’s daughter Simplicia). Lots 3348-A &
3349-A were also devised to Mangulabnan (but only 288-A is the disputed property in this case).
 Executor appointed in the will – Bernardo Patulandong, testatrix’s son.
 Jan. 11, 1973 – CFI admitted will to probate. Testatrix herself, during her lifetime, filed the petition for the probate.

Codicil modifying the devise of Lot No. 288-A

 June 27, 1973 – Testatrix executed a codicil devising Lot No. 288-A to her four children (Bernardo, Simplicia,
Guillerma, and Juan Patulandong) and her grandson Mangulabnan. Each will get 1/5 of the land. All other provisions
of her will stayed the same.
 Testatrix died on May 14, 1988.

Mangulabnan asked executor Patulandong to deliver to him the title to Lot No. 288-A. Patulandong refused, in view of the
codicil which modified the testatrix’s will.

A. RTC Gapan, Nueva Ecija – Action for partition

 Mangulabnan thus filed an “action for partition” against Patulandong (partition case).
 June 8, 1989 – RTC granted the partition but pronounced that the court holds that the partition is without
prejudice [to] . . . the probate of the codicil in accordance with the Rules of Court. (emphasis supplied!)

B. Probate of the codicil of the testatrix

 July 17, 1989 – Patulandong filed before RTC Nueva Ecija a petition for probate of the codicil.

The sale of Lot No. 288-A

 While this proceeding is ongoing, on Feb. 7, 1991, by virtue of the decision in the partition case, Mangulabnan caused
the cancellation of the title of the testatrix over Lot No. 288-A and a new TCT was issued in his name.
 Then, Mangulabnan sold the lot to petitioners Camaya so a new TCT was thus issued in the name of the Camayas.
  Jan. 16, 1996 – Trial court (Sp. Proc. No. 218) admitted the codicil to probate and pronounced the ff:
1. Declared the TCT issued in Mangulabnan’s name and also his Deed of Absolute Sale with the Camayas as NULL
and VOID;
2. Ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the TCT of Mangulabnan and to reissue the same in the name of the five
devisees (children + grandson which is Mangulabnan).
 The Camayas filed an MR but was denied.

Court of Appeals (CA) – Affirmed RTC order. Hence, this petition.

Issues:
1. (RELATED TO TOPIC) WON 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? (YES)
2. WON the final judgment the partition case bars the allowance of the codicil? (NO)

Ratio:
1. Petitioners are correct in contending that under the law, the probate court has no power, authority, and jurisdiction to
declare null and void the sale and titles of petitioners; and that the probate court can only resolve the following issues:
1) Question of identity - WON the instrument which is offered for probate is the last will and testament of the
decedent;
2) Question of execution - WON the will has been executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law;
and
3) Question of capacity - WON the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will.

Cuizon v. 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 a dispute, 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.”

Application to this case:

 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.

2. 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; and that petitioner Camayas are innocent purchasers for value and enjoy the legal
presumption that the transfer was lawful. This argument does not persuade.

Though the judgment in the partition case had become final and executory as it was not appealed, 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 outcome of the probate of
the codicil.

The probate court being bereft of authority to rule upon the validity of petitioners’ titles, there is no longer any necessity to
dwell on the merits of petitioners Camayas’ claim that they are innocent purchasers for value and enjoy the legal presumption
that the transfer was lawful.

Dispositive: Petition GRANTED IN PART. The decision allowing the codicil is AFFIRMED but the following are set aside,
without prejudice to respondent and his co-heirs’ ventilation of their right in an appropriate action:
1) declaration nullifying the TCT issued in Mangulabnan’s name and nullifying the Deed of Absolute Sale between him
and the Camayas;
2) the order to reissue the TCT in the name of the five devisees in the codicil.