Title
Bolisay vs. Alcid
Case
G.R. No. L-45494
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1978
Petitioners, registered owners of a Torrens-titled property, contested its inclusion in an estate inventory and rental collection by the administratrix. The Supreme Court ruled the probate court lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership, favoring petitioners' title and excluding the property from the estate.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-45494)

Case Overview

The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Benito Bolisay and Generosa Buted Bolisay against Hon. Leonardo S. Alcid and Angela Buted Pascual. The petition seeks to annul a court order allowing the administratrix of an intestate estate to collect rentals from a property titled in the petitioners' name.

Background

  • Parties Involved:
    • Petitioners: Benito Bolisay and Generosa Buted Bolisay
    • Respondents: Hon. Leonardo S. Alcid (Judge), Angela Buted Pascual (Administratrix)
  • Property:
    • A lot in Barrio San Jacinto, Laoag City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-12782, with a history of ownership since June 5, 1961.
  • Intestate Estate:
    • The estate of Luciana Abadilla, mother of the private respondent Angela Buted Pascual and the petitioners, is being settled.

Legal Principles

Jurisdiction of Probate Court

  • Principle: A probate court lacks the jurisdiction to make final determinations on property ownership included in an estate inventory.
  • Key Definitions:
    • Probate Court: A court that deals with the administration of estates of deceased individuals.
  • Important Requirements:
    • Ownership issues must be resolved in a separate action, not within the probate proceedings.
  • Cross-reference: Established in prior rulings (e.g., Garcia vs. Garcia, Santos vs. Antonio).

Court's Findings

  • Initial Ruling: The court approved the inventory including the property in question without opposition.
  • Subsequent Actions: Angela Buted Pascual filed a motion to collect rentals, which the court granted without notifying the petitioners.
  • Petitioners' Response: Filed motions for reconsideration and to exclude the property from the inventory, both denied.

Court's Rationale

  • The probate court determined that while it can supervise the inventory, it cannot resolve ownership disputes definitively.
  • The inclusion of the property in the inventory does not negate the petitioners' rights based on their Torrens title.

Court's Decision

  • Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the lower court's orders allowing the administratrix to collect rentals and denying the exclusion of the property from the inventory.
  • Key Takeaways:
    • The property, titled under the Torrens system in the petitioners' names, should not be considered part of the estate until ownership is resolved in a proper action.
    • The administratrix may pursue rental claims in the annulment case but cannot collect without clear ownership determination.

Key Takeaways

  • The ruling emphasizes the distinction between probate court authority and ownership disputes, asserting that a Torrens title provides presumptive ownership until effectively challenged.
  • The case underscores procedural requirements for resol
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research tool in the Philippines with case digests and full jurisprudence. AI summaries highlight key points but might skip important details or context. Always check the full text for accuracy.