Title
Spouses Bernardo T. Constantino and Editha B. Constantino vs. Alejandria N. Benitez
Case
G.R. No. 233507
Decision Date
Feb 10, 2021
Spouses Constantino contested Alejandria's claim over Romeo Benitez's estate, alleging improper cadastral proceedings. SC ruled intestate court lacked jurisdiction for writ of possession; ownership claims must be resolved separately.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233507)

Background and Intestate Proceedings

In the intestate court, Alejandria was appointed as the administrator of Romeo’s estate, with the court declaring her and their two daughters, Fritzie Joy and Analiza, as the rightful heirs. The intestate proceedings concluded with a Deed of Settlement, where Alejandria was granted sole ownership of the properties. Nonetheless, later developments involved a request for new owner’s duplicates of the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) due to alleged loss, which the cadastral court eventually approved.

Purchase and Claims of Ownership

On April 20, 2011, the Spouses Constantino purchased the same lots covered by TCT Nos. T-26828 and T-27844 from Ceazar Cu Benitez, alleging these properties were always in the exclusive possession of Ceazar. After learning of the court's decision granting Alejandria new titles, Spouses Constantino filed a petition for annulment regarding that judgment.

Motion for Intervention

On February 8, 2013, they filed a Motion for Intervention in the intestate proceedings, seeking to exclude the disputed lots from the intestate estate. However, their motion was rejected because it was determined that the intestate proceedings had already become final and immutable prior to their intervention request, having been closed since December 8, 2010.

Orders of the Intestate Court

Following Alejandria's request for a Writ of Possession on December 11, 2014, the intestate court granted her motion, ordering the Spouses Constantino to vacate the properties. This led to further opposition from the Spouses, asserting the orders were void due to a lack of jurisdiction by the intestate court.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Upon petitioning the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari regarding the intestate court's March 2015 Orders, the appeal was dismissed. The CA upheld that the issues raised by Spouses Constantino related to ownership and title were not actionable as they had missed the opportunity to intervene due to the finality of the intestate court’s earlier judgment. The CA emphasized that the appropriate remedy would have been a petition for relief from judgment, which was not pursued timely.

Subsequent Developments

While the CA proceedings were ongoing, it later ruled in a separate case that the original TCTs had not been lost and reinstated them under Romeo’s name. This decision was declared final and executory, further complicating the ownership claims.

Current Issue and Legal Determination

The main issue was whether the motion for intervention by Spouses Constantino could be ente

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.