Title
Aranas vs. Mercado
Case
G.R. No. 156407
Decision Date
Jan 15, 2014
Dispute over inclusion of properties in intestate estate inventory; RTC upheld as probate court with authority to provisionally determine ownership for inventory purposes.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2598)

Petitioner

Thelma M. Aranas, child of Emigdio from his first marriage, objected to the inventory prepared by Teresita.

Respondents

Teresita V. Mercado (administratrix), her five children by Emigdio, and Franklin L. Mercado (Emigdio’s son from his first marriage).

Key Dates

• January 12, 1991 – Emigdio’s death
• June 3, 1991 – Petition for appointment of administratrix filed
• September 7, 1992 – Letters of administration issued
• December 14, 1992 – Initial inventory submitted
• January 8 to April 19, 1993 – Inventory amendment motions and hearings
• March 14, 2001 – RTC orders inclusion of properties in revised inventory
• May 18, 2001 – RTC denies reconsideration
• May 15, 2002 – CA partially grants certiorari
• January 15, 2014 – SC decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision)
• 1987 Rules of Court, Rules 78, 83, 90, 109; Rule 41 on finality of interlocutory orders
• Civil Code provisions on conveyance (Arts. 1477, 1498) and legitime (Art. 1061)
• National Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 78 (transfers in contemplation of death)

Antecedents

Emigdio’s estate comprised real properties, corporate shares in Mervir Realty and Cebu Emerson, and personal assets. Teresita’s inventory claimed only personal and corporate shares but omitted land previously sold or assigned to Mervir Realty and assets inherited by Emigdio from his mother. Thelma moved for amendment and examination of Teresita under oath. After eight years of hearings, the RTC provisionally ruled that excluded properties—shares in maternal inheritance, conjugal assets (stocks, bank account), Lot No. 3353 (title still in Emigdio’s name), and lands assigned two days before death—should be included in the inventory.

Procedural Issue

The CA held the RTC orders interlocutory and subject to certiorari under Rule 65 (grave abuse of discretion), partly reversing inclusion of lands sold or assigned to Mervir Realty but affirming the remainder. The Supreme Court confirmed certiorari as proper since approval of the inventory is provisional, and interlocutory orders are non-appealable unless final or specifically appealable under Rule 109.

Merits of Inclusion

  1. Inventory Scope and Duty: Under Rules 78 and 83, an administrator must submit a “true inventory” of all estate properties “in possession or knowledge.” The word “all” admits no unwarranted exclusion; provisional inclusion safeguards heirs’ legitime and ensures full accounting.
  2. Probate Court Jurisdiction: It holds limited but sufficient jurisdiction to determine provisional inclusion or exclusion of properties, subject to later separate actions on ownership. Inclusion orders are discretionary but reviewable only for grave abuse.
  3. Reasons for Inclusion:
    a. Shares inherited from the decedent’s mother were admitted by the administratrix.
    b. Corporate stocks and bank account opened during marriage formed conjugal partnership; one-half pertains to Emigdio’s estate absent clear proof of exclusive ownership.
    c. Lot No. 3353 remained registered in Emigdio’s name; a related case affirmed the estate’s claim, and Mervir Realty never intervened.
    d. Lands assigned two days before death constitute transfers in contemplation of death (NIRC Sec. 78) and must be included at death’s valuation.
    e. Notarization of deeds or Torrens registration does not preclude contest in probate; the presumpt

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.