agreement with the City Treasurer and settled the

accounts of Felisa R. Reyes.[9]

G.R. No. 139587. November 22, 2000] On May 10, 1989, private respondent Cesar
Reyes, brother of Oscar Reyes, filed a petition for
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF issuance of letters of administration with the Regional
DECEASED ISMAEL REYES, THE HEIRS OF Trial Court of Quezon City praying for his appointment
OSCAR R. REYES, petitioners, vs. CESAR R. as administrator of the estate of the deceased Ismael
REYES, respondent. Reyes which estate included 50% of the Arayat
properties covered by TCT Nos. 4983 and 3598.
DECISION [10]
Oscar Reyes filed his conditional opposition thereto
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: on the ground that the Arayat properties do not form
part of the estate of the deceased as he (Oscar) had
In this petition for review on certiorari, acquired the properties by redemption and or
petitioners seek to annul the decision of the purchase.[11]
respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. The probate court subsequently issued letters of
46761[1] which affirmed the Order[2] dated January 26, administration in favor of Cesar Reyes where the latter
1994 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon was ordered to submit a true and complete inventory
City, in Special Proceeding No. 89-2519, a petition for of properties pertaining to the estate of the deceased
issuance of letters of administration, and the and the special powers of attorney executed by the
resolution dated July 28, 1999 denying their motion other heirs who reside in the USA and that of Aurora
for reconsideration.[3] Reyes-Dayot conforming to his appointment as
Spouses Ismael Reyes and Felisa Revita Reyes are administrator.[12] Cesar Reyes filed an inventory of real
the registered owners of parcels of land situated in and personal properties of the deceased which
Arayat Street, Cubao, Quezon City covered by Transfer included the Arayat properties with a total area of
Certificates of Title Nos. 4983 and 3598 (39303). The 1,009 sq. meters.[13] On the other hand, Oscar Reyes
spouses have seven children, namely: Oscar, Araceli, filed his objection to the inventory reiterating that the
Herminia, Aurora, Emmanuel, Cesar and Rodrigo, all Arayat properties had been forfeited in favor of the
surnamed Reyes. government and he was the one who subsequently
redeemed the same from the BIR using his own funds.
On April 18, 1973, Ismael Reyes died [14]

intestate. Prior to his death, Ismael Reyes was notified

by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) of his income A hearing on the inventory was scheduled where
tax deficiency which arose out of his sale of a parcel administrator Cesar Reyes was required to present
land located in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. For failure evidence to establish that the properties belong to the
to settle his tax liability, the amount increased to estate of Ismael Reyes and the oppositor to adduce
about P172,724.40 and since no payment was made evidence in support of his objection to the inclusion of
by the heirs of deceased Ismael Reyes, the property certain properties in the inventory. [15] After hearing
covered by TCT No. 4983 was levied[4] sold and the parties respective arguments, the probate court
eventually forfeited by the Bureau of Internal Revenue issued its Order dated January 26, 1994, the
in favor of the government.[5] dispositive portion of which reads:[16]

Sometime in 1976, petitioners predecessor Oscar WHEREFORE, pursuant to the foregoing findings, the
Reyes availed of the BIRs tax amnesty and he was Court hereby modifies the inventory submitted by the
able to redeem the property covered by TCT No. administrator and declares to belong to the estate of
4983[6] upon payment of the reduced tax liability in the late Ismael Reyes the following properties, to wit:
the amount of about P18,000.[7]
On May 18, 1982, the Office of the City Treasurer 1. One half (1/2) of the agricultural land
of Quezon City sent a notice to Felisa Revita Reyes located in Montalban, Rizal containing an
informing her that the Arayat properties will be sold at area of 31,054 square meters, covered by
public auction on August 25, 1982 for her failure to TCT 72730 with an approximate value of
settle the real estate tax delinquency from 1974-1981. P405,270.00;
[8]
2. One half (1/2) of two (2) adjoining
On December 15, 1986, petitioners predecessor residential lots located on Arayat Street,
Oscar Reyes entered into an amnesty compromise Cubao, Quezon City, with total area of
1,009 square meters, more or less,
covered by TCTs No. 4983 AND 3598
 (39303), with an approximate value of shall be without prejudice to the outcome of any
P3,027,000.00; but this determination is action to be brought hereafter in the proper court on
provisional in character and shall be the issue of ownership of the properties; that the
without prejudice to the outcome of any provisional character of the inclusion of the contested
action to be brought hereafter in the properties in the inventory as stressed in the order is
proper Court on the issue of ownership within the jurisdiction of intestate court. It further
of the properties; and, stated that although the general rule that question of
title to property cannot be passed upon in the probate
3. The building constructed by and leased to
court admits of exceptions, i.e. if the claimant and all
Sonny Bernardo and all its rental income
other parties having legal interest in the property
from the inception of the lease, whether
consent, expressly or impliedly, to the submission of
such income be in the possession of
the question to the probate court for adjudication,
oppositor, in which case he is hereby
such has no application in the instant case since
directed to account therefor, or if such
petitioner-appellee and oppositor-appellant are not
income be still unpaid by Bernardo, in
the only parties with legal interest in the subject
which case the administrator should
property as they are not the only heirs of the
move to collect the same.
decedent; that it was never shown that all parties
interested in the subject property or all the heirs of
Consistent with the foregoing things, either of the
the decedent consented to the submission of the
administrator oppositor, or heir Felisa R. Reyes, in her
question of ownership to the intestate court.
personal capacity as apparent co-owner of the Arayat
Street properties, may commence the necessary Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration
proper action for settling the issue of ownership of which was denied in a resolution dated July 28,
such properties in the Regional Trial Court in Quezon 1999. Hence this petition for review on certiorari
City and to inform the Court of the commencement alleging that the respondent Court erred (1) in ruling
thereof by any of them as soon as possible. that the court a quo correctly included one half (1/2)
of the Arayat properties covered by TCT Nos. 4983 and
The administrator is hereby directed to verify and 3598 (39303) in the inventory of the estate of the
check carefully on whether other properties, deceased Ismael Reyes (2) in upholding that the court
particularly the real properties allegedly situated in a quo has no jurisdiction to determine the issue of
Montalban, Rizal; in Marikina, Metro Manila (near ownership.
Boys Town); and in Bulacan, otherwise referred to as
Petitioners argue that a probate courts
the Hi-Cement property truly pertained to the estate;
jurisdiction is not limited to the determination of who
to determine their present condition and the status of
the heirs are and what shares are due them as regards
their ownership; and to render a report thereon in
the estate of a deceased person since the probate
writing within thirty (30) days from receipt of this
court has the power and competence to determine
Order.
whether a property should be excluded from the
inventory of the estate or not, thus the Court a quo
The motion demanding for accounting to be done by
committed a reversible error when it included the
oppositor Oscar Reyes is hereby denied for being Arayat properties in the inventory of the estate of
unwarranted, except whatever incomes he might have
Ismael Reyes despite the overwhelming evidence
received from Sonny Bernardo, which he is hereby presented by petitioner-oppositor Oscar Reyes proving
directed to turn over to the administrator within thirty
his claim of ownership. Petitioners contend that their
(30) days from finality of this Order. claim of ownership over the Arayat properties as
testified to by their predecessor Oscar Reyes
A motion for reconsideration was filed by Oscar was based on two (2) grounds, to wit (1) his
Reyes which was denied in an Order dated May 30, redemption of the Arayat properties and (2) the
1994.[17] He then filed his appeal with the respondent abandonment of the properties by his co-heirs; that
Court of Appeals. While the appeal was pending, his act of redeeming the properties from the BIR in
Oscar died and he was substituted by his heirs, herein 1976 and therefter from the City Treasurer of Quezon
petitioners. City using his own funds have the effect of vesting
On May 6, 1999, the respondent Court issued its ownership to him. Petitioners claim that private
assailed decision which affirmed the probate courts respondent is already barred from claiming the Arayat
order. It ruled that the probate courts order properties since he only filed this petition 16 years
categorically stated that the inclusion of the subject after the death of Ismael Reyes and after the prices of
properties in the inventory of the estate of the the real properties in Cubao have already escalated
deceased Ismael Reyes is provisional in character and tremendously.
 We find no merit in this argument. adjudgment, or the interests of third persons are not
thereby prejudiced.[22]
The jurisdiction of the probate court merely
relates to matters having to do with the settlement of The facts obtaining in this case, however, do not
the estate and the probate of wills of deceased call for the application of the exception to the rule. It
persons, and the appointment and removal of bears stress that the purpose why the probate court
administrators, executors, guardians and trustees. allowed the introduction of evidence on ownership
[18]
The question of ownership is as a rule, an was for the sole purpose of determining whether the
extraneous matter which the Probate Court cannot subject properties should be included in the inventory
resolve with finality. [19] Thus, for the purpose of which is within the probate courts competence. Thus,
determining whether a certain property should or when private respondent Cesar Reyes was appointed
should not be included in the inventory of estate as administrator of the properties in the courts Order
proceeding, the probate court may pass upon the title dated July 26, 1989, he was ordered to submit a true
thereto, but such determination is provisional, not inventory and appraisal of the real and personal
conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a properties of the estate which may come into his
separate action to resolve title.[20] possession or knowledge which private respondent
complied with. However, petitioner Oscar Reyes
We find that the respondent Court did not err in
submitted his objection to the inventory on the
affirming the provisional inclusion of the subject
ground that it included the subject properties which
properties to the estate of the deceased Ismael Reyes
had been forfeited in favor of the government on April
without prejudice to the outcome of any action to be
21, 1975 and which he subsequently redeemed on
brought thereafter in the proper court on the issue of
August 19, 1976. The Court resolved the opposition as
ownership considering that the subject properties are
follows:
still titled under the torrens system in the names of
spouses Ismael and Felisa Revita Reyes which under
At the hearing today of the pending incidents, it was
the law is endowed with incontestability until after it
agreed that the said incidents could not be resolved
has been set aside in the manner indicated in the law.
[21] without introduction of evidence.
The declaration of the provisional character of the
inclusion of the subject properties in the inventory as
Accordingly, the hearing on the inventory of real and
stressed in the order is within the jurisdiction of the
personal properties is hereby set on April 24, 1990 at
Probate Court.
10:00 A.M. at which date and time the
Petitioners next claim that as an exception to the petitioner/administrator shall be required to present
rule that the probate court is of limited jurisdiction, evidence to establish that the properties stated in the
the court has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of inventory belong to the estate of Ismael Reyes. The
ownership when the parties interested are all heirs of oppositor shall thereafter adduce his evidence in
the deceased and they submitted the question of title support of his objection to the inclusion of certain
to the property, without prejudice to third properties of the estates in the inventory.
persons. Petitioners allege that the parties before the
probate court were all the heirs of deceased Ismael Notably, the Probate Court stated, from the start
Reyes and they were allowed to present evidence of the hearing, that the hearing was for the merits of
proving ownership over the subject properties, thus accounting and inventory, thus it had jurisdiction to
private respondent cannot argue that he did not in hear the opposition of Oscar Reyes to the inventory as
any way consent to the submission of the issue of well as the respective evidence of the parties to
ownership to the probate court as the records of this determine for purposes of inventory alone if they
case is replete with evidence that he presented should be included therein or excluded therefrom. In
evidence in an attempt to prove ownership of the fact, the probate court in its Order stated that for
subject properties. resolution is the matter of the inventory of the estate,
mainly to consider what properties should be included
We are not persuaded.
in the inventory and what should not be included.
Settled is the rule that the Regional Trial Court There was nothing on record that both parties
acting as a probate court exercises but limited submitted the issue of ownership for its final
jurisdiction, thus it has no power to take cognizance of resolution. Thus the respondent Court did not err in
and determine the issue of title to property claimed ruling that the trial court has no jurisdiction to pass
by a third person adversely to the decedent, unless upon the issue of ownership conclusively.
the claimant and all other parties having legal interest
In fact, the probate court, aware of its limited
in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the
jurisdiction declared that its determination of the
submission of the question to the Probate Court for
ownership was merely provisional and suggested that
either the administrator or the widow Felisa Reyes are now claiming to be the owner of the
may commence the proper action in the Regional Trial property in Arayat Street to which you
Court. Moreover, the court admitted that it was not answered no, will you explain your answer?
competent to pass upon the ownership of the subject
A: When I paid almost P18,000.00, it does not
properties, thus:
mean that I claim the property already; on the
contrary, I have my own reasons to claim it
Although the testimony of the oppositor should have
now on other conditions which are the
greater persuasive value than that of the
following: number one, there was a levy by
petitioner/administrator, mainly because it agrees
the BIR on the property, it was forfeited due
closely with the recitals of facts found in the several
to delinquency of real estate taxes; number
public documents submitted as evidence in this case
two, for abandonment, when my mother,
and is corroborated to the greatest extent by the fact
brother(s) and sisters left the property, they
that the properties were, indeed, abandoned in his
told me it is my problem and I should take
possession since 1975 until the present, his alleged
care of it. Number three, the disposition, my
ownership of the Arayat Street properties cannot still
mother, my brothers and sisters sold the
be sustained in a manner which would warrant their
property of my father, the Hi-Cement and the
exclusion from the administrators inventory.
property in Visayas Street without giving my
share. And another thing I have to sell my own
To begin with, there are portions in the records which
property, my own assets so that I can redeem
show that the oppositor himself was somehow
from the BIR the Arayat property and which I
uncertain about his rights on the properties and the
did with my personal funds, and number five,
basis therefor. During his cross-examination (tsn, Oct.
nobody helped me in my problems regarding
4, 1991), he gave the following statements:
those properties, I was alone and so I felt that
the property in Arayat is mine.
xx xx xx
xx xx xx
(Atty. Habitan)
Q: And if we will add the other taxes you have paid, (tsn, Sept. 18, 1992, pp. 2-3)
(you) are now claiming to be the owner of the
Arayat property because you have paid all Notwithstanding his clarifying statements on redirect
these taxes? examination, the impression of the Court on the issue
is not entirely favorable to him. Apart from the
A: The amounts I have paid and all the expenses I
absence of a specific document of transfer, the
have and if I had not paid all these amounts
circumstances and factors he gave may not suffice in
the property in question would have been
and by themselves to convey or transfer title, for, at
lost, sir.
best, they may only be the basis of such transfer. They
Q: So, in effect, you are now claiming ownership may be considered as proof of the intention to dispose
over the property, I want a categorical answer, in his favor or as evidence of a set off among the heirs,
Mr. Witness? which seems to be what he has in mind. There might
also be substance in his assertions about the
A: If I am going to sum up all these expenses, my abandonment in his favor, which, if raised in
share in the Hi-Cement property, my share in the proper action, could constitute either prescription
the Bulacan property, the amount of the or laches. It is hardly needed to stress, therefore, that
property in Cubao is small and also all my more than these are required to predicate the
sufferings because of the property in Cubao, exclusion of the properties from the inventory.
this cannot be paid in terms of money, sir.
(tsn, Oct. 4, 1991, pp. 10-12) Another obtrusive reality stands out to invite
notice: the BIR levy was only made on the property
On re-direct examination (tsn, Sept. 18, 1992), he covered in TCT 4983 and did not include the property
clarified his statements as follows: covered in TCT 3598 (39303).This somehow detracts
from the logic of the oppositors assertion of
xx xx xx ownership of the entire Arayat Street properties; even
(Atty, Javellana) if his assertion is valid and true, it can encompass, at
most, only the property subject of the BIRs levy and
Q: Mr. Reyes, on cross-examination, you were declaration of forfeiture (i.e., TCT 4983), not the
asked by the petitioners counsel whether property covered by TCT 3598 (39303).
because you had paid the BIR P17,872.44 you
These pronouncements should not by any means motion for extension on August 27, 1999 praying for
diminish or deprive the oppositor of whatever rights 30 days extension from August 28, 1999 or until
or properties he believes or considers to be rightfully September 27, 1999 to file their petition which this
his. Although the circumstances and factors he has Court granted. Petitioners filed their petition on
given to the Court herein may have legal September 27, 1999, which is within the period given
consequences that could have defeated opposing- by the Court.
claims and rendered oppositors claim on the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
properties unassailable, this Courts competence to
for review is DENIED.
adjudicate thus in this proceedings is clearly non-
existent. In Baybayan vs. Aquino (149 SCRA 186), it SO ORDERED.
was held that the question of ownership of a property
alleged to be part of the estate must be submitted to
the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction.

This ruling then, cannot be a final adjudication on the

present and existing legal ownership of the
properties. Whatever is declared herein ought not to
preclude oppositor from prosecuting an ordinary
action for the purpose of having his claims or rights
established over the properties. If he still cares
hereafter to prosecute such claim of
ownership adversely to the estate and the apparent
co-owner, his mother Felisa. As stated in Valera, et al.
vs. Judge Inserto, et al. (149 SCRA 533), this Court,
acting as a probate court, exercises but limited
jurisdiction; accordingly, its determination that
property should be included in the inventory or not is
within its probate jurisdiction, but such determination
is only provisional in character, not conclusive, and is
subject to the final decision in a separate action that
may be instituted by the parties.

xx xx xx

The aforecited findings clarify that there were several

reasons for having the issue of ownership ventilated
elsewhere. Apart from the fact that only one-half of
the two lots known as the Arayat property (i.e., the
half that could pertain to the estate) could be settled
herein, there was the realization that the evidence
adduced so far (including that bearing on the
oppositors basis for excluding from the estate the
property) was inadequate or otherwise inconclusive.

A practical way of looking at the problem is that this

Court, sitting herein as an intestate court, does not
consider itself competent to rule on the ownership of
the entire Arayat property.

Finally, anent private respondents allegation that

the instant petition was filed one day late, hence
should be dismissed, we find the same to be devoid of
merit. Petitioners received copy of the decision
denying their motion for reconsideration on August
13, 1999, thus they have until August 28, 1999 within
which to file petition for review. Petitioners filed their