Intestate of San Pedro v CA (265 SCRA 733)

FACTS:

The case involves two petitions which were consolidated by the court in its decision.

1. GR 103727

Engracio San Pedro, as heir-judicial administrator of Plaintiff Intestate, filed a complaint for recovery of real property/ reconveyance with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction against private defendants Ocampo, Buhain and dela Cruz.

San Pedro alleged that defendants acquired portion of the subject estate by employing fraud, bad faith and misrepresentation.

RTC of QC dismissed the complaint saying that the defendants are already the registered owners covered by the Torrens Title - which cannot be defeated by the alleged Spanish Title of San Pedro. The Spanish Title also stated that the estate shall be excluded from the coverage of Titulo Propriedad No. 4136. The court ordered Plaintiff Intestate to pay each defendant the amount of 5,000 and atty fees.

Motion for Recon was denied.  Petitioner filed an appeal,  CA dismissed.  

2. GR 106496

Engracio San Pedro and Justino Benito filed a petition for letter of administration over the intestate to be appointed as administrator and co-administrator. Judge Echeverri appointed San Pedro as administrator and the court issued letter of administration in his favor upon posting a bond of 10,000.

Republic of the Philippines filed a motion for intervention and opposition to the petition, claiming that the Titulo de Propriedad is inadmissible and ineffective proof of ownership in court and it is invalid.

Republic filed a motion to suspend the proceedings but the Republic‘s opposition to the petition for letter of administration was dismissed. Republic filed Motion for Recon.

The Judge declared Titulo de Propriedad as null and void and excluded all lands covered from the inventory of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro.

bPetitioner-heirs appealed to CA. CA dismissed.

ISSUES:

1.Whether or not the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in settling the issue of ownership of the estate covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136?

2. Whether or not the lower court committed error in excluding from the inventory of the estate all lands covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 on the ground that it is null and void?

RATIO:

1.NO. It is within the jurisdiction of the lower court functioning as probate court. The jurisdiction of the Probate Court is not limited to the determination of who the heirs are and what shares are due them. Their main function is to settle and liquidate the estate of the deceased so as to rule on whether the inventory of the estate properly included them for distribution of the net assets estate to lawful heirs.

2.NO. The lower court did not commit any error when it declared Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 as null and void, consequently excluding all lands covered by the said title from the inventory of the estate.

Under PD 892, the system of registration under Spanish Mortgage Law was abolished and all holders of Spanish Titles should cause their lands to be registered under Land Registration Act within 6 months from date of effectivity or until August 16, 1976.

In both cases, petitioner-heirs did not adduce evidence to show that Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 was brought under the operation of PD 892. There was no certificate of title shown.

Also, Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136, under PD 892, is inadmissible and ineffective as evidence of private ownership in special proceedings case. Since the Titulo was not registered under Land Registration Act, said Titulo is inferior to the registered title of defendants Ocampo, Buhain and dela Cruz. Torrens title of the latter enjoys the conclusive presumption of validity.

Petitioner-heirs failed to present neither the original Titulo nor a genuine copy thereof (only an alleged illegible copy was presented). Even the secondary evidence presented was also not admissible.

RULING:

The Titulo de Propriedad is null and void and no rights can be derived therefrom. All lands covered by said Titulo are excluded from inventory of the estate. The petition for letter of administration closed and terminated. The heirs are disallowed to exercise any act of possession or ownership and ordered to vacate.