G.R. No. 207407 - Estipona vs. Estate of Aquino

Decedent Anacleto Aquino died on April 26, 1997, leaving a will dated February 8, 1997. A probate petition was filed on May 16, 1997 in RTC Manila (SP No. 97-83384) and the will was admitted on August 25, 1997. Victor L. Espinosa was appointed administrator, removed July 6, 2000; Lorna Fe Espinosa was appointed special administrator on November 12, 2002 and regular administrator on March 8, 2004.
The initial inventory (May 23, 2000) included a 150 sqm property at 632, 632A & 634 E. Quintos Street, Sampaloc, Manila (TCT No. 212562) with three apartment units; the accounting was found deficient and the administrator was ordered to resubmit detailed proofs but failed to comply.

Petitioners (Raquel Estipona, spouses Alberto & Lulu Co, and assignee Lelandlord E. Sto. Domingo) alleged two separate loans of ₱300,000 each from spouses Estipona and spouses Cacanando to Aquino, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage dated November 15, 1996 over units 632 and 632A, with a right of first offer at ₱800,000 per unit.
They further alleged (a) an oral option sale on March 26, 1997 of unit 632 to Raquel Estipona for ₱800,000 minus her ₱300,000 loan, with payments totalling ₱544,000 and a remaining ₱256,000 balance; (b) a written sale on installment of unit 632A by Deed of Sale on Installment dated February 21, 1997, for ₱800,000 (₱200,000 paid at signing, ₱600,000 purportedly paid October 23, 1997).

As administrator, Lorna Espinosa filed unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases against Estipona and spouses Co. Petitioners filed “Claims Against the Estate” on February 11, 2004, praying for preliminary injunctions and specific performance to enforce the mortgage and installment sale, partition, and release of units 632 and 632A.
The probate court approved a partition plan on July 26, 2005, devising the three-door apartment (including units 632 & 632A) to decedent’s grandchildren. On April 23, 2007 it denied petitioners’ claims as beyond its probate jurisdiction; its denial of reconsideration (July 3, 2007) was affirmed by the CA on August 15, 2012, and its denial of CA reconsideration on June 3, 2013.

Whether petitioners’ claims constitute “money claims” under Section 5, Rule 86, over which the probate court has jurisdiction.
Whether the installment sale of unit 632A is a binding contract to convey realty under Section 8, Rule 89.
Whether the Dead Man’s Statute (Section 23, Rule 130) bars Raquel Estipona from testifying about the alleged oral sale of unit 632.