Title
Supreme Court
Vizconde vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 118449
Decision Date
Feb 11, 1998
Lauro Vizconde contested inclusion in intestate proceedings of Rafael Nicolas’ estate, disputing collation of Parañaque property acquired via sale proceeds, not gratuitous transfer. SC ruled in his favor, citing limited probate jurisdiction and inapplicability of collation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 118449)

Petitioner

Lauro G. Vizconde, as sole heir by representation of his deceased daughters, owner of the Parañaque property and automobile acquired by Estrellita.

Respondents

Court of Appeals; Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, Caloocan City; Ramon G. Nicolas (son of Rafael and Salud).

Key Dates

• May 22, 1979: Sale of Valenzuela property by Rafael to Estrellita.
• March 30, 1990: Sale of Valenzuela property by Estrellita to third parties.
• June 30, 1991: Deaths of Estrellita and daughters.
• November 18, 1992: Death of Rafael.
• November 9, 1993: RTC appoints guardians and special administratrix in Rafael’s estate.
• March 10, 1994: RTC orders inclusion of petitioner and collation of properties.
• December 14, 1994: Court of Appeals denies petitioner’s certiorari.
• February 11, 1998: Supreme Court decision under the 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Civil Code of the Philippines, Articles 887 (compulsory heirs) and 1061–1071 (collation).

Factual Background

Rafael gifted Valenzuela land to Estrellita by sale in 1979 (TCT No. V-554). In 1990 she sold it for ₱3,405,612 and used proceeds to purchase the Parañaque property and acquire a vehicle. After her death, petitioner and Rafael’s family divided Estrellita’s estate, including bank deposits, the Parañaque property, and the car. Rafael died in 1992, prompting intestate proceedings in RTC, Branch 120.

Procedural History

Ramon Nicolas contested guardianship and moved to include petitioner as heir of Rafael and to collate the Parañaque property, vehicle, and remaining sale proceeds. The RTC granted inclusion and collation. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether petitioner, as son-in-law by representation, is a compulsory heir of Rafael.
  2. Whether the probate court may determine the validity and nature of the sale between Rafael and Estrellita.
  3. Whether the Parañaque property is subject to collation in Rafael’s estate.
  4. Whether the Valenzuela property proceeds require collation.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The appellate court upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction to include petitioner in the intestate proceeding and to subject both the Parañaque property and the Valenzuela sale proceeds to collation, deeming the 1979 transfer gratuitous for lack of proof of consideration.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that:

  1. Inclusion Error
    • Petitioner is not a compulsory heir of Rafael under Civil Code Article 887. As a son-in-law with no creditor status, he lacks standing to be included or intervene in Rafael’s intestate proceeding.
  2. Jurisdictional Excess
    • Probate courts may make only provisional, prima facie determinations of title. Validity of the sale, presence of consideration, and interpretation of the deed fall outside their final jurisdiction and require a separate action.
  3. Premature Collation
    • Collation applies only when forced heirs receive gratuitous transf

...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.