DEOGRACIAS BERNARDO V CA

Facts:

Eusebio Capili and Hermogena Reyes were husband and wife. The former died on July 27, 1958. His will was submitted for probate and the testator disposed his estate primarily to his wife, cousins and Arturo, Deogracias and Eduardo Bernado.

A year after the husband’s death or on April 24, 1959, the wife died.

By virtue of this incident, Deogracias as executor of the husband’s will petitioned the probate court that the wife be substituted by her collateral relative, intestate heirs and Jose, Constancia, Raymunda and Elena Isidoro.

Consequently, a project partition was filed by the executor in accordance with the testator’s will but with the exception of Hermegena Reyes, whose share was allotted to her collateral relatives. Thereafter, a counter-project of partition was filed by the said relatives claiming ½ of the properties on the theory that they belonged to the conjugal partnership of the spouses.

One of the issues that were brought to the probate court for consideration was on the propriety of a separate civil action of the matters currently in litigation with it. Said probate court ordered the disapproval of the projects partition since the properties involved were conjugal properties of the deceased spouses.

Executor then filed a motion for new trial which raised the question of jurisdiction of the probate court to take cognizance of the claim. This motion was however denied.

On appeal, Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s decision.

Hence, this petition for review by ceritiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not, the matters in controversy i.e. questions as to title to property be tried and heard by the probate court?

Ruling:

As a general rule, question as to title to property cannot be passed upon on testate or intestate proceedings," except where one of the parties prays merely for the inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of the property, in which case the probate court may pass provisionally upon the question without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action. However, we have also held that when the parties interested are all heirs of the deceased, it is optional to them to submit to the probate court a question as to title to property, and when so submitted, said probate court may definitely pass judgment thereon and that with the consent of the parties, matters affecting property under judicial

administration may be taken cognizance of by the court in the course of intestate proceeding, provided interests of third persons are not prejudiced.

In the case now before us, the matter in controversy is a matter properly within the jurisdiction of the probate court which necessarily has to liquidate the conjugal partnership in order to determine the estate of the decedent which is to be distributed among his heirs who are all parties to the proceedings, including, of course, the widow, now represented because of her death, by her heirs who have been substituted upon petition of the executor himself and who have appeared voluntarily. There are no third parties whose rights may be affected. It is true that the heirs of the deceased widow are not heirs of the testator-husband, but the widow is, in addition to her own right to the conjugal property. And it is this right that is being sought to be enforced by her substitutes. Therefore, the claim that is being asserted is one belonging to an heir to the testator and, consequently, it complies with the requirement of the exception that the parties interested are all heirs claiming title under the testator.