86 Pastor vs. CA (Garduno)

Sps. Pastor vs.
CA / 1983 decedent’s estate, of which Quemada was authorized

to retain 75% for himself as legatee.
J. Plana  The 33% share of Alvaro and/or his assignees was ordered
garnished to answer for the accumulated legacy of
I. FACTS
Quemada.
 Spouses Alvaro Pastor, Sr. (Pastor Sr) and Sofia Bossio,  Quemada succeeded in obtaining a Writ of Execution and
both Spanish subjects,were survived by their two legitimate Garnishment.
children Alvaro Pastor, Jr.(Alvaro) and Sofia and an o The oppositors sought reconsideration thereof but in
illegitimate child, Lewellyn Quemada. the meantime,
o Alvaro is a Philippine citizen, having been naturalized o the probate court ordered suspension of payment of all
in 1936. Sofia is a Spanish subject. Quemada is a royalties due Alvaro until after resolution of the motion
Filipino by his mother’s citizenship. for reconsideration.
 Quemada filed a petition for the probate and allowance of  Pending motion, Pastor Jr. and his wife filed with the CA a
an alleged holographic will of Pastor Sr. with the CFI Cebu, petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for writ of
Branch I (Probate Court) which contained only one preliminary injunction assailing the writ of execution and
testamentary disposition: a legacy in favor of Quemada garnishment issued by the probate court. This and their MR
consisting of 30% of Alvaro’s 42% share in the operation was denied.
by Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development
Corporation (ATLAS) of some mining claims in Pina-Barot, II. ISSUE: WON the Probate Order resolved with finality the
Cebu. questions of ownership and intrinsic validity? - NO.
 Thereafter, the probate court appointed Quemada as
III. RATIONALE
special administrator of the entire estate of Pastor Sr.
whether or not covered or affected by the holographic will.  In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue
o Quemada instituted against Alvaro and his wife an by and large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of the will.
action for reconveyance of alleged properties of estate  As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous
which included the properties subject of the legacy matter which the Probate Court cannot resolve with finality.
which were in the names of spouses Alvaro and Ma. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain
Elena, who claimed to be the owners in their own property should or should not be included in the inventory
rights, and not by inheritance. of estate properties, the Probate Court may pass upon the
 The Probate Court issued an order allowing the will to title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not
probate. Quemada filed pleading after pleading asking for conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate
payment of his legacy and seizure of the properties subject action to resolve title.
of said legacy.  The Order sought to be executed by the assailed Order of
 The order was affirmed by CA. execution is the Probate Order allegedly resolved the
o On review, the SC dismissed the petition and question of ownership of the disputed mining properties.
remanded the same to the probate court after denying However, nowhere in the dispositive portion is there a
reconsideration. declaration of ownership of specific properties.
 For two years after remand of the case to the probate court,  On the contrary, it is manifested therein that ownership was
all pleadings of both parties remained unacted upon. not resolved. For it confined itself to the question of
 The Probate Court set the hearing on the intrinsic validity extrinsic validity of the will, and the need for and propriety
of the will for March 25, 1980, but upon objection of Alvaro of appointing a special administrator. Thus it allowed and
and Sofia on the ground of pendency of the reconveyance approved the holographic will “with respect to its extrinsic
suit, no hearing was held validity, the same having been duly authenticated pursuant
o So the Probate Court required the parties to submit to the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law.”
their respective position papers as to how much  It declared that the intestate estate administration aspect
inheritance Quemada was entitled to receive must proceed subject to the outcome of the suit for
 While the reconveyance suit was still pending in another reconveyance of ownership and possession of real and
court, the probate court issued Order of Execution and personal properties.
Garnishment, resolving the question of ownership of the  The Probate Court did not resolve the question of
royalties payable by ATLAS. ownership of the properties listed in the estate inventory,
o It ruled that the legacy to Quemada was not inofficious. considering that the issue of ownership was the very
o Pursuant to said order, ATLAS was directed to remit subject of controversy in the reconveyance suit that was
directly to Quemada the 42% royalties due to still pending.
 It was, therefore, error for the assailed implementing
Orders to conclude that the Probate Order adjudged with
finality the question of ownership of the mining properties
and royalties.
IV. DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R.
No. SP-11373-R is reversed. The Order of execution issued by
the probate Court dated August 20, 1980, as well as all the
Orders issued subsequent thereto in alleged implementation of
the Probate Order dated December 5, 1972, particularly the
Orders dated November 11, 1980 and December 17, 1980, are
hereby set aside; and this case is remanded to the appropriate
Regional Trial Court for proper proceedings, subject to the
judgment to be rendered in Civil Case No. 274-R.

86 Pastor vs. CA (Garduno)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

86 Pastor vs. CA (Garduno)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

86 Pastor vs. CA (Garduno)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Pastor vs.

CA / 1983 decedent’s estate, of which Quemada was authorized

You might also like