Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18148)
Facts:
The case involves Deogracias Bernardo, the executor of the testate estate of the deceased Eusebio Capili, along with the instituted heirs, namely Armando Capili and Arturo Bernardo, as petitioners. The respondents are the Honorable Court of Appeals and the heirs of the late Hermogena Reyes, specifically Francisco Reyes and others, as well as Jose Isidro and others. The events leading to this case began with the death of Eusebio Capili on July 27, 1958, after which a testate proceeding for the settlement of his estate was initiated in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. Eusebio's will was admitted to probate on October 9, 1958, which allocated his properties to his widow, Hermogena Reyes, and several cousins. Hermogena Reyes passed away on April 24, 1959, and her collateral relatives were substituted as her heirs in the proceedings.
On June 12, 1959, Deogracias Bernardo filed a project of partition in the testate proceeding, distributing Eusebio's estate among t...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18148)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Petitioners: Deogracias Bernardo, executor of the testate estate of Eusebio Capili, and the instituted heirs (Armando Capili, Arturo Bernardo, etc.).
- Respondents: Heirs of Hermogena Reyes (Francisco Reyes, Jose Isidro, etc.).
Background:
Eusebio Capili and Hermogena Reyes were married. Eusebio died in 1958, and his will was admitted to probate, disposing of his properties in favor of his widow (Hermogena) and other instituted heirs. Hermogena died in 1959, and her collateral heirs were substituted in the proceedings.
Dispute:
The executor filed a project of partition, adjudicating Eusebio’s estate to the testamentary heirs, excluding Hermogena’s share, which was allotted to her collateral heirs. The heirs of Hermogena opposed, claiming that half of the properties belonged to the conjugal partnership, not solely to Eusebio. They argued that Hermogena’s donation of her share to Eusebio was invalid, as it violated Article 133 of the Civil Code (prohibiting donations between spouses during marriage) or, if mortis causa, lacked the formalities of a will.
Probate Court Decision:
The probate court declared the donation void and disapproved both projects of partition. It ordered the executor to file a new partition, dividing the properties between Eusebio’s heirs and Hermogena’s heirs, on the basis that the properties were conjugal.
Issue:
- Whether the probate court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the deed of donation and adjudicate ownership of the properties.
- Whether the heirs of Hermogena have standing to question the validity of the donation.
- Whether the parties’ actions constituted submission to the jurisdiction of the probate court.
- Whether Hermogena’s heirs are estopped from questioning the ownership due to her prior actions.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that:
- The probate court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the ownership of the properties, as all interested parties were heirs of the deceased, and no third-party rights were involved.
- The heirs of Hermogena had standing to question the validity of the donation.
- The petitioners, by submitting their project of partition and contesting the opposition, had submitted to the jurisdiction of the probate court.
- Hermogena’s heirs were not estopped from questioning the ownership, as she acted under a mistaken belief regarding the validity of the donation.
Ratio:
- Jurisdiction of Probate Courts: While probate courts generally have limited jurisdiction, they may adjudicate questions of title when all interested parties are heirs and no third-party rights are affected.
- Validity of Donation: Donations between spouses during marriage are void under Article 133 of the Civil Code. If considered mortis causa, the donation lacked the formalities required for a will.
- Submission to Jurisdiction: Parties who raise an issue in probate proceedings cannot later withdraw from the court’s jurisdiction.
- Estoppel: Estoppel requires knowledge of facts and rights. Hermogena’s actions did not constitute estoppel, as she acted under a mistaken belief regarding the donation’s validity.