Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    PALMA V CA

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Barbarona
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding a property dispute involving an estate. The subject property was a house and lot that was claimed by both the estate of Basilia Zialcita Vda. De Taningco and third parties who had purchased the property. The Supreme Court held that the subject property was under the jurisdiction of the probate court because special proceedings regarding the estate had been filed in 1984, before any sales transactions occurred, making the property part of the estate. Additionally, the probate court's 1990 order declaring the sales void had become final and the property was subsequently sold with the court's authorization, so the case was deemed terminated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PALMA V CA

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Barbarona
    51 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding a property dispute involving an estate. The subject property was a house and lot that was claimed by both the estate of Basilia Zialcita Vda. De Taningco and third parties who had purchased the property. The Supreme Court held that the subject property was under the jurisdiction of the probate court because special proceedings regarding the estate had been filed in 1984, before any sales transactions occurred, making the property part of the estate. Additionally, the probate court's 1990 order declaring the sales void had become final and the property was subsequently sold with the court's authorization, so the case was deemed terminated.

    Original Description:

    Special Proceedings

    Original Title

    PALMA v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding a property dispute involving an estate. The subject property was a house and lot that was claimed by both the estate of Basilia Zialcita Vda. De Taningco and third parties who had purchased the property. The Supreme Court held that the subject property was under the jurisdiction of the probate court because special proceedings regarding the estate had been filed in 1984, before any sales transactions occurred, making the property part of the estate. Additionally, the probate court's 1990 order declaring the sales void had become final and the property was subsequently sold with the court's authorization, so the case was deemed terminated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    51 views3 pages

    PALMA V CA

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Barbarona
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding a property dispute involving an estate. The subject property was a house and lot that was claimed by both the estate of Basilia Zialcita Vda. De Taningco and third parties who had purchased the property. The Supreme Court held that the subject property was under the jurisdiction of the probate court because special proceedings regarding the estate had been filed in 1984, before any sales transactions occurred, making the property part of the estate. Additionally, the probate court's 1990 order declaring the sales void had become final and the property was subsequently sold with the court's authorization, so the case was deemed terminated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    PALMA v.

    CA
    GR No. 101383
    September 12, 1984

    Topic: Provisional Determination of


    Ownership
    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 third parties.
    Synopsis: Petitioners were sold properties
    that belong to respondents’ deceased
    estate subject for administration. It is
    contended by respondents that such sale
    was done without authority of the probate
    court which was under its jurisdiction. Sales
    transactions transpired in 1988 where
    special proceedings was filed in 1984 which
    undoubtedly made the subject property
    part of the estate of the deceased and
    under the jurisdiction of the probate court
    which has the authority to approve any
    disposition regarding properties under
    administration. The trial court’s challenged
    order of June 5, 1990 has become final and
    executory, and subject property had been
    sold to Amigo Realty Development
    Corporation with authority from the trial
    court.
    Facts:
    Subject property is house and lot
    located at No. 65 Santo Tomas St., Galas,
    Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 33181.
    When respondent Yuseco took steps to pay
    the real estate taxes on the property, she
    discovered that it had already been sold on
    May, 9, 1988 by Paulino Taningco, husband
    of the deceased, to Ireneo B. Zialcita, Jr.,
    and TCT No. 383664 was issued in his name.
    In turn, the latter sold the property to
    petitioners Gamaliel B. Palma and Eduardo
    A. Beltran for P1,000,000.00 through a deed
    of absolute sale dated 9 June 1988 for
    which they were issued TCT No. 383686 and
    Tax Declaration No. 826 in their names. On
    8 November 1989, the property was again
    sold, this time by petitioners, to the
    Carmelite Theresian Missionaries, Inc., and
    TCT No. PR-17857 and Tax Declaration No.
    C-030-00730 were issued in its name.
    On 2 April 1990, respondent Yuseco
    filed before the trial court a motion to
    declare void all the deeds of sale, tax
    declarations and transfer certificates of title
    covering the property where Carmelite
    Theresian Missionaries, Inc. appeared but
    petitioners did not. On June 5, 1990, the
    trial court issued the disputed order
    nullifying the documents with the bases
    that: (a) the property cannot be the subject

    of any transaction without the approval of


    the probate court; and (b) the deed of sale
    dated May 9, 1988 is a clear forgery
    because Paulino Taningco declared that he
    died in February 1984. Zialcita, Jr. was able
    to acquire the property and transfer its
    ownership to petitioners following the
    destruction of the surrendered owner’s
    duplicate copy surrendered to the Register
    of Deeds when fire razed the Quezon City
    Hall on June 11, 1988.
    On June 22, 1990, the trial court
    denied the probate of the holographic will
    of Basilia Zialcita Vda. De Taningco for
    failure to establish the authenticity of the
    handwriting of the testatrix by at least 3
    witnesses and for lack of mental capacity,
    having established that she was semi-invalid
    and suffering from senile dementia as of the
    time the holographic will was executed.
    On September 24, 1990, petitioners
    file a motion for intervention and petition
    for relief. The court refused to take
    cognizance of the motion and petition on
    the ground that it had lost jurisdiction over
    the case considering Zalciata, Jr. already
    filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus
    with the Court of Appeals assailing the
    order of the court.
    The CA set aside the order of the
    trial court on the basis that: (a) a probate
    court cannot adjudicate or determine title
    to properties claimed to be part of the
    estate and equally claimed by outside
    parties; and (b) Torrens titles cannot be
    attacked collaterally.
    Upon motion for reconsideration by
    respondent Yuseco, CA amended and
    reversed its decision.
    Issue:
    Whether subject property was
    under the jurisdiction of the probate court.
    Held:
    YES. The Supreme court affirmed
    decision of the Court of Appeals upon the
    motion for reconsideration of the
    respondent on the basis that: (a) sales
    transactions transpired in 1988 where
    special proceedings was filed in 1984 which
    undoubtedly made the subject property
    part of the estate of the deceased and
    under the jurisdiction of the probate court
    which has the authority to approve any
    disposition regarding properties under
    administration; and (b) the trial court’s
    challenged order of June 5, 1990 has
    become final and executory, and subject
    property had been sold to Amigo Realty
    Development Corporation with authority
    from the trial court. Once a judgment has
    been executed, it may no longer be
    amended, modified or altered. The case is
    deemed terminated once and for all. The
    same ruling olds in the case of an order
    which has been enforced.

    You might also like