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

Magallanes vs. Kayanan

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

LUCENA MAGALLANES, petitioner, vs. HON.

UNION KAYANAN, Presiding Judge of Branch IV,


CFI, Quezon and the HEIRS OF ELIGIOMAGALLANES, respondents.
G.R. No. L-31048 January 20, 1976

Facts:
On August 4, 1960, petitioner Lucena Magallanes filed a "Solicitud" praying that Lot No. 2657
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1091 and one-half (½) of Lot No. 3465 covered by
Original Certificate of Title No. 6447 be partitioned and distributed among the heirs of the
deceased Filomena Magallanes.

On October 31, 1961, private respondents, the Heirs of Eligio Magallanes, namely: Maria San
Buenaventura,Godofredo Magallanes and Carmen Magallanes de Ingente filed their opposition
and motion to dismiss the "Solicitud" claiming title and ownership over the parcels of land in
question and raising the issue that the trial court is devoid of jurisdiction to resolve the issues
raised in the pleadings.

On July 12, 1968, the private respondents filed a petition for summary judgment on the pleadings
praying that their absolute right of ownership over the properties in question be recognized and
confirmed. Petitioner files her opposition to the petition for summary judgment on the ground
that in a summary settlement of an estate, the Court has no jurisdiction to pass finally and
definitely upon the title or ownership over the properties involved therein; and that summary
judgment is not proper, there being a genuine issue or material controversy raised by the
pleadings of the parties.

On March 21, 1969, the lower court, rendered a summary judgment on the pleadings submitted
by the parties confirming the private respondents' (Heirs of Eligio Magallanes) absolute and
exclusive right of ownership and possession over the subject lots.

Issue:
WON the probate court has jurisdiction to pass finally and definitely upon the title or ownership
of the properties involved in a summary settlement of the estate

Ruling:
No, the probate court does not have the jurisdiction to pass finally and definitely upon the title
or ownership of the properties involved in a summary settlement of the estate.

Well established is the doctrine that the property, whether real or personal, which are alleged to
form part of the estate of a deceased person but claimed by another to be his property by adverse
title to that of the deceased and his estate and not by virtue of any right of inheritance from ' the
deceased, cannot be determined by the probate court. Such questions must be submitted to the
Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction to try and determine ordinary
actions. The probate court may do so only for the purpose of determining whether or not a given
property should be included in the inventory of the estate of the deceased, but such
determination is not conclusive and is still subject to a final decision in a separate action to be
instituted between the parties. Likewise, the probate court may also determine questions of title
to property if the parties voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction and introduced evidence to
prove ownership.

In the case at bar, the action instituted by the petitioner was not for the purpose of determining
whether or not a given property should be included in the inventory of the estate of the
deceased. The action was for partition and distribution of the properties left by the deceased.
Neither have all of the parties voluntarily submitted the issue of ownership for resolution by the
court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner opposed the petition of private respondents to have the
issue of ownership or title decided in the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the
deceased.

Moreover, summary judgment can be availed of where no genuine issue as to any material fact
is raised in the pleadings. Where there is an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties or where
the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, neither one of them can pray for a
summary judgment to take the place of a trial. Summary judgment can be rendered only where
there are no questions of fact in issue or where the material allegations of the pleadings are not
disputed.

An examination of the pleadings in this case clearly shows that there is a genuine issue or material
controversy raised therein. Thus, petitioner claims that she and her co-heirs have the right to
inherit the properties in question as they form part of the estate of Filomena Magallanes. On the
other hand, herein private respondents contend that they acquired the ownership over the said
properties by purchase from Filomena Magallanes during her lifetime. In the face of the
conflicting claims of both petitioner and respondents a factual dispute certainly arises which can
only be properly settled by means of a trial on the merits. Summary judgment was, therefore,
uncalled for in the premises.

The SC declared the decision of the lower court null and void and remanded the case to the latter
court as a court of general jurisdiction to settle the title and ownership over the parcels of land
in question.

You might also like