Title
Supreme Court
Agtarap vs. Agtarap
Case
G.R. No. 177099
Decision Date
Jun 8, 2011
Joaquin Agtarap's intestate estate, acquired during first marriage, contested by heirs; SC ruled pro-conjugal partnership, upheld heirs' legitimacy, deferred Milagros' share pending probate.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 177099)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Family Background
    • Joaquin Agtarap died intestate on November 21, 1964 in Pasay City, leaving no known debts.
    • First marriage (to Lucia Garcia Mendietta, d. April 24, 1924): three children – Jesus (d.s.p.), Milagros (d.1996), and Jose (d.1967; survived by three children Gloria, Joseph, Teresa).
    • Second marriage (to Caridad Garcia, m. February 9, 1926; d. August 25, 1999): three children – Eduardo (petitioner in G.R. No. 177099), Sebastian (petitioner in G.R. No. 177192), and Mercedes (d.1984; survived by husband Abelardo Dagoro and daughter Cecile).
  • Properties and Lower‐Court Proceedings
    • Estate comprised two adjoining lots with improvements in Pasay City, covered by TCT Nos. 38254 and 38255 (net worth ₱14,177,500).
    • Eduardo filed for judicial settlement (RTC Branch 114, Special Proceedings No. 94-4055) on September 15, 1994, and was appointed administrator.
    • Oppositions by Joseph, Gloria, Teresa (claiming exclusive ownership from first marriage), and intervention by Abelardo Dagoro.
    • October 23, 2000 Order of Partition: allocated one-half of estate to Caridad’s conjugal share and remainder among Joaquin’s heirs per law.
    • August 27, 2001 RTC Resolution modified partition, declaring lots conjugal to Joaquin and Lucia, requiring repartition.
    • Appeal to Court of Appeals (CA); November 21, 2006 CA Decision affirmed RTC Resolution, detailing distribution among first- and second-marriage heirs.
    • March 27, 2007 CA Resolution denied motions for reconsideration.
    • Consolidated petitions filed before the Supreme Court:
      • G.R. No. 177192 (Sebastian) – assigns errors in CA’s fact-finding, legitimacy issues, and non-application of collateral attack, estoppel, res judicata.
      • G.R. No. 177099 (Eduardo) – contends CA lacked jurisdiction over Milagros’s estate (testate vs. intestate precedence) and erred on property ownership under Torrens titles.

Issues:

  • Issues Common to Both Petitions
    • Did the CA err in resolving ownership of the subject real properties under its limited probate jurisdiction?
    • Were Joseph, Teresa, Walter de Santos and Abelardo Dagoro valid heirs and representatives properly included?
  • Additional Issues
    • (Sebastian) Did CA ignore material facts affecting legitimacy, and fail to apply doctrines of collateral attack, estoppel, and res judicata?
    • (Eduardo) Did CA usurp jurisdiction by settling Milagros’s estate in intestate proceedings despite her pending will?
    • (Eduardo) Did CA improperly disregard Torrens titles as conclusive evidence of ownership?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.