G.R. No. 177099. EDUARDO G.
AGTARAP, Petitioner, versus SEBASTIAN AGTARAP, JOSEPH AGTARAP, TERESA
AGTARAP, WALTER DE SANTOS, and
ABELARDO DAGORO, Respondents.
Eduardo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a verified petition for the judicial settlement of the estate of his
deceased father Joaquin Agtarap (Joaquin).
The petition alleged that Joaquin died intestate without any known debts or obligations. During his lifetime, Joaquin
contracted two marriages, first with (Lucia), and second with (Caridad). Lucia died on April 24, 1924. Joaquin and Lucia
had three children—Jesus (died without issue), Milagros, and Jose (survived by three children, namely, Gloria, Joseph,
and Teresa). Joaquin married Caridad on February 9, 1926. They also had three children—Eduardo, Sebastian, and
Mercedes (survived by her daughter Cecile). At the time of his death, Joaquin left two parcels of land with
improvements in Pasay City.
RTC issued an order setting the petition for initial hearing and directing Eduardo to cause its publication. Sebastian
filed his comment, generally admitting the allegations in the petition, and conceding to the appointment of Eduardo as
special administrator.
Joseph, Gloria, and Teresa filed their answer/opposition. They alleged that the two subject lots belong to the conjugal
partnership of Joaquin with Lucia, and that, upon Lucia’s death in April 1924, they became the pro indiviso owners of
the subject properties. They opposed the appointment of Eduardo as administrator on the following grounds: (1) he is
not physically and mentally fit to do so; (2) his interest in the lots is minimal; and (3) he does not possess the
desire to earn. They claimed that the best interests of the estate dictate that Joseph be appointed as special or
regular administrator.
RTC issued a resolution appointing Eduardo as regular administrator of Joaquin’s estate. Consequently, it issued him
letters of administration.
After the parties were given the opportunity to be heard and to submit their respective proposed projects of partition,
the RTC issued an Order of Partition.
Issue: WON the RTC, acting as an intestate court with limited jurisdiction has the power and authority to
determine questions of ownership, which properly belongs to another court with general jurisdiction.
The Court’s Ruling
As to Sebastian’s and Eduardo’s common issue on the ownership of the subject real properties, we hold that
the RTC, as an intestate court, had jurisdiction to resolve the same.
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a probate or an intestate court, relates only to
matters having to do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased persons, but does
not extend to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The patent
rationale for this rule is that such court merely exercises special and limited jurisdiction.
However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as justified by expediency and convenience.
First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate proceeding the question of
inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice to the final determination
of ownership in a separate action. Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the question is
one of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court
and the rights of third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is competent to resolve issues on
ownership. Verily, its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of
the estate, such as the determination of the
status of each heir and whether the property in the inventory is conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse.
We hold that the general rule does not apply to the instant case considering that the parties are all heirs of Joaquin and that
no rights of third parties will be impaired by the resolution of the ownership issue. More importantly, the determination of
whether the subject properties are conjugal is but collateral to the probate court’s jurisdiction to settle the estate of Joaquin.
Therefore, in light of the foregoing evidence, as correctly found by the RTC and the CA, the claim of Sebastian and
Eduardo that properties are conclusively show that the owners of the properties covered therein were Joaquin and Caridad by
virtue of the registration in the name of Joaquin Agtarap casado con (married to) Caridad Garcia, deserves scant
consideration. This cannot be said to be a collateral attack on the said TCTs. Indeed, simple possession of a certificate of title is
not necessarily conclusive of a holder’s true ownership of property. A certificate of title under the Torrens system aims to
protect dominion; it cannot be used as an instrument for the deprivation of ownership. Thus, the fact that the properties were
registered in the name of Joaquin Agtarap, married to Caridad Garcia, is not sufficient proof that the properties
were acquired during the spouses’ coverture. The phrase “married to Caridad Garcia” in the TCTs is merely descriptive of
the civil status of Joaquin as the registered owner, and does not necessarily prove that the realties are their conjugal
properties.
Neither can Sebastian’s claim that Joaquin’s estate could have already been settled in 1965 after the payment of the
inheritance tax be upheld. Payment of the inheritance tax, per se, does not settle the estate of a deceased person. As
provided in Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court. Thus, an estate is settled and distributed among the heirs only after
the payment of the debts of the estate, funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and
inheritance tax. The records of these cases do not show that these were complied.
