Case Digest (G.R. No. 118449)
Facts:
Lauro G. Vizconde v. Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Branch 120, Caloocan City, and Ramon G. Nicolas, G.R. No. 118449, February 11, 1998, the Supreme Court Third Division, Francisco, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Lauro G. Vizconde was the widower of Estrellita Nicolas‑Vizconde. In 1979 Estrellita purchased from her father, Rafael Nicolas, a 10,110 sq. m. parcel in Valenzuela (TCT No. V‑554) by a document described as a Lubusang Bilihan for P135,000. In March 1990 Estrellita sold that Valenzuela property to Amelia Lim and Maria Natividad Balictar Chiu for P3,405,612; with a portion of the proceeds she acquired a parcel in BF Homes, Parañaque (the Paranaque property), bought from Premier Homes, Inc., for P900,000, and deposited the balance in bank accounts.
On June 30, 1991 Estrellita and her two daughters were murdered. By operation of succession Carmela and Jennifer (her daughters) and petitioner succeeded to Estrellita’s estate, but after the daughters’ subsequent deaths petitioner became sole heir of his daughters. Petitioner nevertheless executed an Extra‑Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Estrellita Nicolas‑Vizconde With Waiver of Shares with Rafael and Salud, whereby bank deposits, the Paranaque property and a car were apportioned and Rafael and Salud purportedly waived claims in favor of petitioner.
After Rafael died on November 18, 1992, Teresita instituted intestate probate proceedings (Sp. Proc. No. C‑1679, RTC Branch 120, Caloocan) naming Rafael’s heirs and seeking appointment as Special Administratrix; Ramon G. Nicolas opposed and sought guardianship petitions on behalf of Salud and Ricardo. Ramon later sought to include petitioner in the intestate proceedings and to have the Valenzuela sale declared a gratuitous transfer so that the proceeds used to buy the Paranaque property and other assets be collated into Rafael’s estate. The RTC initially appointed Ramon guardian and Teresita special administratrix, then removed Ramon as guardian for misconduct.
Although petitioner filed a manifestation (January 19, 1994) disclaiming any interest and asserting he was neither a compulsory heir nor an intestate heir of Rafael, Ramon moved (February 14, 1994) to include petitioner and to subject the Paranaque property and other assets to collation. The RTC granted the motion (March 10, 1994) and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (August 12, 1994), concluding the Valenzuela transfer was gratuitous and that the Paranaque property was subject to collation.
Petitioner sought relief by certiorari and prohibition from the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition in a decision dated December 14, 1994, holding the probate court’s action within its jurisdiction t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the inclusion of petitioner in Rafael Nicolas’s intestate estate proceeding proper, given his status as son‑in‑law and his own assertion that he had no interest in the estate?
- Could the probate court validly determine the legality and character (gratuitous or for a valuable consideration) of the March 30, 1990 sale of the Valenzuela property between Rafael and Estrellita?
- Was the Paranaque property subje...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)