[ ] 1
AGTARAP v. AGTARAP
G.R. No. 177099, June 08, 2011
Ponente: NACHURA, J:
Digest by: MARGALLO
TOPIC: Identification of the Estate and Provision for Support of the Family -
Rule 83; Art. 1061, Civil Code: Sections 1 & 2, Rule 83 - Inventory and Appraisal
DOCTRINE:
All that the said court could do as regards said properties is to determine
whether or not they should be included in the inventory of properties to be
administered by the administrator. If there is no dispute, there poses no
problem, but if there is, then the parties, the administrator, and the opposing
parties have to resort to an ordinary action before a court exercising general
jurisdiction for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title.
FACTS:
 Decedent Joaquin left (2) parcels of land with improvements. He
contracted (2) marriages.
o With Lucia (W1), who died 1924; three children, Jesus (+),
Milagros (+), Jose (+)
o Then with Caridad (W2), with three children, Eduardo, Sebastian,
Mercedes
 Son Eduardo (W2) filed petition for settlement of Joaquin’s intestate
estate. RTC issued resolution appointing Eduardo as administrator.
 The RTC issued an Order of Partition on Oct 23, 2000 which ruled that
“bulk of estate property were acquired during the existence of 2nd
marriage, TCTs showing Joaquin married to Caridad.
 Eduardo, Sebastian, and oppositors Joseph & Teresa (Jose children) filed
their respective motions for reconsiderations. The RTC: Denied Eduardo &
Sebastian MRs; Granted MR of Joseph & Teresa; Declared “real properties
belonged to conjugal partnership of Joaquin & Lucia” and directed Oct
Partition to reflect correct sharing of heirs.
 Eduardo & Sebastian both appealed to CA before RTC could issue new
order of partition. The CA dismissed the appeals and affirmed the RTC
resolution. The CA also directed the partition of Joaquin’s properties.
Aggrieved, Sebastian and Eduardo filed separate MRs which were denied.
They filed separate petitions for review which were eventually
consolidated.
 Sebastian contended that Joseph & Teresa failed to establish that they are
legitimate heirs of Jose, and thus of their grandfather Joaquin. The
certificates of title of subject property indicate “Joaquin married to
Caridad” which is conclusive proof of ownership, and thus not subject to
collateral attack
 Eduardo alleged that the CA erroneously settled Joaquin’s estate together
with the estates of Lucia, Jesus, Jose, Mercedes, Gloria and Milagros in one
proceeding. The Estate of Milagros cannot be distributed, since a
proceeding was already conducted in another court for the probate of
Milagros’ will, thus violating the rule on precedence of testate over
intestate proceedings. The RTC, acting as an intestate court with limited
jurisdiction has no jurisdiction to determine questions of ownership which
belongs to another court with general jurisdiction.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the CA erroneously settled Joaquin’s Estate together with the
estate of the heirs and the property to be included in the inventory to be
administered by the administrator?
HELD:
NO
 Eduardo’s petition granted. Sebastian’s petition denied. CA affirmed with
modification that the
o share awarded in favor of Milagros shall not be distributed until
the final determination of the probate of the will .
o Sebastian to be represented by wife and children, given demise in
2010
 Case remanded to RTC for further settlement of Joaquin’s estate.
 RTC has jurisdiction to resolve ownership of the real properties.
 Gen Rule: Jurisdiction of trial court, either as probate or intestate court,
relates only to matters having to do with probate of will and or settlement
of estate of deceased persons and does not extend to determination of
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 [ ] 2

questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. All that the said These cases are hereby remanded to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 114,
court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether or not Pasay City, for further proceedings in the settlement of the estate of Joaquin
they should be included in the inventory of properties to be administered Agtarap. No pronouncement as to costs.
by the administrator. If there is no dispute, there poses no problem, but if (GUYS HIRAP ILUSTRATE NG DISTRIBUTION. BUTI NALANG MERON SA NET HAHAHA)
there is, then the parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties have
to resort to an ordinary action before a court exercising general
jurisdiction for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title.
 Exceptions, as justified by expediency and convenience: 1.) Probate court
may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or testate proceeding the
question of inclusion or exclusion, from inventory of a piece of property
w/o prejudice to final determination in a separate action. 2.) If interested
parties are all heirs or question is one of collation/advancement or parties’
consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the court and the rights of 3P
are not impaired
 Estate is settled and distributed among heirs only after payment of debts
of the estate, funeral charges admin expenses, allowance to the widow,
and inheritance tax. Records show these were not complied with in 1965.
 Sebastian did not present evidence to support averments to exclude
Joseph and Teresa as heirs.
 CA disposition related only to the estate of Joaquin. Sec 1 Rule 90: RTC
granted jurisdiction to determine lawful heirs of Joaquin as well as
respective shares in the payment of obligations. The inclusion of Lucia,
Jesus, Jose, Mercedes and Gloria was merely a necessary consequence of
the settlement of Joaquin’s estate, them being his legal heirs.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 177192 is DENIED for lack of merit, while
the petition in G.R. No. 177099 is PARTIALLY GRANTED, such that the Decision
dated November 21, 2006 and the Resolution dated March 27, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: that the
share awarded in favor of Milagros Agtarap shall not be distributed until the
final determination of the probate of her will, and that petitioner Sebastian G.
Agtarap, in view of his demise on January 15, 2010, shall be represented by his
wife Teresita B. Agtarap and his children Joaquin Julian B. Agtarap and Ana Ma.
Agtarap Panlilio.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019