Case Digest (G.R. No. L-45494)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Benito Bolisay and Generosa Buted Bolisay against respondents Hon. Leonardo S. Alcid, acting as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, and Angela Buted Pascual, the administratrix of the intestate estate of Luciana Abadilla. The events leading to the case began with the death of Luciana Abadilla, whose estate was being settled in Special Proceedings No. 4560-II. The subject property in question is a 538-square meter lot located in Barrio San Jacinto, Laoag City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-12782, issued to the petitioners on August 20, 1976. The petitioners had held title to the property since June 5, 1961, under TCT No. (T-7271)-3377. The property was originally owned by Luciana Abadilla, who sold a portion of it to Filemon Pascua in 1952. The petitioners used the property as collateral for a loan from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) in 1962, which they repaid in 1974 after constructing a 7-door a...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-45494)
Facts:
Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Benito Bolisay and Generosa Buted Bolisay, who are the registered owners of the disputed property.
- Respondents:
- Hon. Leonardo S. Alcid, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, Branch in Laoag City.
- Angela Buted Pascual, the administratrix of the intestate estate of Luciana Abadilla (deceased mother of Generosa Buted Bolisay and Angela Buted Pascual).
Subject Property
- The property in question is a lot located in Barrio San Jacinto, Laoag City, with an area of 538 square meters.
- It is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-12782 in the name of petitioners, issued on August 20, 1976.
- The petitioners had earlier title over the property since June 5, 1961, under TCT No. (T-7271)-3377, which covered 549 square meters. The reduction in area was due to a sale of a portion to Filemon Pascua in 1952.
Background of Ownership
- The property was originally owned by Luciana Abadilla, the deceased mother of Generosa Buted Bolisay and Angela Buted Pascual.
- Luciana Abadilla sold the property to petitioners, and they secured a loan of P30,000 from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) in June 1962, using the property as collateral.
- With the loan proceeds and their own funds, petitioners constructed a 7-door apartment on the property, which has been declared in their names for tax purposes since 1970.
- The GSIS mortgage was released upon full payment of the loan on June 24, 1974.
Legal Disputes
- In August 1975, Angela Buted Pascual and Maria Buted filed Civil Case No. 6135-II to annul the Deed of Sale executed by Luciana Abadilla in favor of petitioners, alleging lack of consideration and disputing that petitioners funded the construction of the apartment.
- A separate action for partition, Civil Case No. 2452-I, was also pending, wherein a compromise agreement excluded the disputed property from partitionable properties.
- Despite this, on May 19, 1973, Angela Buted Pascual, as administratrix, included the property in the inventory of Luciana Abadilla’s estate, which was approved by the court on June 1, 1973.
- On July 16, 1976, Angela Buted Pascual filed a motion to collect rentals from the apartment, which was granted by the court on July 27, 1976, without notice to petitioners or the tenants.
Petitioners’ Actions
- On August 11, 1976, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the order allowing the collection of rentals.
- On September 6, 1976, they filed a motion to exclude the property from the inventory.
- Both motions were denied by the court on December 9, 1976, with the court stating that it lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership definitively and that the issue should be resolved in the pending civil cases.
Issue:
- Whether the probate court has jurisdiction to determine the ownership of the disputed property, which is already titled in the name of petitioners, and whether it can allow the administratrix to collect rentals from the property.
- Whether the inclusion of the property in the inventory of the estate, despite its registration under the Torrens system in the name of petitioners, is proper.
- Whether the probate court’s order allowing the administratrix to collect rentals from the property is valid, given the petitioners’ claim of ownership.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the probate court’s role is limited and that it cannot make final determinations on ownership disputes. The Torrens title in the name of the petitioners should be respected unless nullified in a proper action. The orders of the respondent judge were set aside, and the issue of ownership was left to be resolved in the pending civil cases.