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 Summary (G.R. No. 177099)

Petitioners and Respondents

• Petitioners before the Supreme Court: Eduardo G. Agtarap and Sebastian G. Agtarap.
• Other parties below: Joseph and Teresa Agtarap (grandchildren by Jose), Walter de Santos (representing Gloria), Abelardo Dagoro (representing Mercedes), Priscilla Agtarap (widow of Jose), and minor descendants of Milagros.

Key Dates

• September 15, 1994 – Eduardo’s petition for judicial settlement of Joaquin’s estate filed in RTC–Pasay (SP No. 94-4055).
• October 23, 2000 – RTC Order of Partition distributing assets among heirs.
• August 27, 2001 – RTC Resolution granting reconsideration to first-marriage heirs, declaring properties conjugal to Joaquin and Lucia.
• November 21, 2006 – Court of Appeals Decision affirming RTC’s August 27, 2001 Resolution and partition.
• March 27, 2007 – CA Resolution denying motions for reconsideration by Eduardo and Sebastian.
• January 15, 2010 – Death of Sebastian G. Agtarap.
• June 8, 2011 – Final Supreme Court disposition.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution – basis for jurisdiction and equal protection among heirs.
• Rules of Court, Rule 73, Section 2 – administration and liquidation of conjugal partnership upon death.
• Rules of Court, Rule 90, Section 1 – conditions for distribution of estate residue after payment of debts, expenses, and inheritance tax.
• Civil Code Article 970 – principle of representation in inheritance.
• Torrens system jurisprudence – certificates of title are prima facie evidence, subject to collateral determination among heirs.

Procedural Background

  1. RTC, Branch 114, Pasay City: Eduardo appointed regular administrator; conducted inventory and accounting; issued October 23, 2000 Order of Partition.
  2. First-marriage heirs (Joseph, Teresa, Gloria’s representative) moved for reconsideration; RTC’s August 27, 2001 Resolution modified partition to reflect one-half conjugal share from Joaquin’s first marriage to Lucia.
  3. Eduardo and Sebastian appealed to the CA; CA on November 21, 2006 dismissed appeals, affirmed RTC’s August 27, 2001 Resolution, and detailed distribution scheme for both first and second marriages’ heirs.
  4. Motions for reconsideration denied March 27, 2007; consolidated petitions for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

  1. Jurisdiction: whether an intestate court may determine ownership and character of Torrens-titled property.
  2. Conjugal rights: whether the lots should reflect Lucia’s conjugal share despite later reissuance in the name of Joaquin married to Caridad.
  3. Legitimacy and representation: challenges to the status of Joseph, Teresa, Walter de Santos, and Abelardo Dagoro as heirs or representatives.
  4. Collateral attack and res judicata: whether the CA wrongly allowed collateral attack on Torrens titles and ignored prior estate settlement in 1965.
  5. Precedence of testate over intestate proceedings: separate will of Milagros and its impact on distribution.

Court’s Ruling

  1. Jurisdictional Scope
    – An intestate or probate court has special and limited jurisdiction but may determine ownership and character of estate properties when all claimants are heirs and no third-party rights are affected. 2. Conjugal Share of First Marriage
    – Torrens titles annotated to substitute Caridad for Lucia did not extinguish Lucia’s half-share. Conjugal partnership must be liquidated in the estate settlement of Joaquin pursuant to Rule 73, Sec. 2.
  2. Certificates of Title
    – Possession of a Torrens title is not an absolute bar to resolving intra-family claims; the term “casado con Caridad Garcia” is descriptive and not conclusive of conjugal property status.
  3. Estate Settlement and Inheritance Tax
    – Payment of inheritance tax in 1965 alone did not effect distribution; under Rule 90, Sec. 1, estate distribution occurs only after payment or provision for debts, expenses, widow’s allowance, and taxes.
  4. Legitimacy and Representation
    – Sebastian failed to produce clear evidence to exclude Joseph and Teresa; their legitimacy as grandchildren of Joaquin by Jose was admitted or unrefuted.
    – Walter de Santos and Abelardo Dagor



...continue reading

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.