Case 25: The Heirs of Reyes vs. Reyes

Case 25: THE HEIRS OF REYES vs.
REYES
G. R. No. 72706
October 27, 1987
Topic: Extent of Jurisdiction of Probate Court
Doctrine: The question of ownership is as a rule, an extraneous matter which the Probate Court
cannot resolve with finality.
I. PARTIES TO THE CASE
a. Petitioners: Heirs of Oscar Reyes
- Oscar Reyes is the Son of Ismael and Felisa Reyes. Oscar died pending his appeal. Hence,
substituted by his Heirs.
b. Respondent: Cesar Reyes
- Brother of Oscar Reyes. Appointed as the administrator of of the estate of the deceased
Ismael Reyes
II. Facts
1. Spouses Ismael Reyes and Felisa Revita Reyes are the registered owners of parcels of land
situated in Arayat Street, Cubao, Quezon City.
2. The spouses have seven children, namely: Oscar, Araceli, Herminia, Aurora, Emmanuel, Cesar
and Rodrigo, all surnamed Reyes.
3. On April 18, 1973, Ismael Reyes died intestate. Prior to his death, Ismael Reyes was notified by
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) of his income tax deficiency which arose out of his sale of a
parcel land located in Tandang Sora, Quezon City.
4. For failure to settle his tax liability, the amount increased to about P172,724.40 and since no
payment was made by the heirs of deceased Ismael Reyes, the property covered by TCT No. 4983
was levied sold and eventually forfeited by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in favor of the
government.
5. Sometime in 1976, petitioners predecessor Oscar Reyes availed of the BIRs tax amnesty and he
was able to redeem the property covered by TCT No. 4983 upon payment of the reduced tax liability
in the amount of about P18,000.
6. On May 18, 1982, the Office of the City Treasurer of Quezon City sent a notice to Felisa Revita
Reyes informing her that the Arayat properties will be sold at public auction on August 25, 1982 for
her failure to settle the real estate tax delinquency from 1974-1981.
7. On December 15, 1986, petitioners predecessor Oscar Reyes entered into an amnesty
compromise agreement with the City Treasurer and settled the accounts of Felisa R. Reyes.
8. On May 10, 1989, private respondent Cesar Reyes, brother of Oscar Reyes, filed a petition for
issuance of letters of administration with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City praying for his
appointment as administrator of the estate of the deceased Ismael Reyes which estate included 50%
of the Arayat properties covered by TCT Nos. 4983 and 3598.
9. Oscar Reyes filed his conditional opposition thereto on the ground that the Arayat properties do
not form part of the estate of the deceased as he (Oscar) had acquired the properties by redemption
and or purchase.
10. The probate court subsequently issued letters of administration in favor of Cesar Reyes where the
latter was ordered to submit a true and complete inventory of properties pertaining to the estate of the
deceased and the special powers of attorney executed by the other heirs who reside in the USA.
11. Cesar Reyes filed an inventory of real and personal properties of the deceased which included
the Arayat properties
12. On the other hand, Oscar Reyes filed his objection to the inventory reiterating that the Arayat
properties had been forfeited in favor of the government and he was the one who subsequently
redeemed the same from the BIR using his own funds.
III. Procedural Posture
RTC:
the Court hereby modifies the inventory submitted by the administrator and declares to belong to the
estate of the late Ismael Reyes the following properties, to wit, among others:
2. One half (1/2) of two (2) adjoining residential lots located on Arayat Street, Cubao, Quezon City,
with total area of 1,009 square meters, more or less, covered by TCTs No. 4983 AND 3598 (39303),
with an approximate value of P3,027,000.00; but this determination is provisional in character and
shall be without prejudice to the outcome of any action to be brought hereafter in the proper Court on
the issue of ownership of the properties;
A motion for reconsideration was filed by Oscar Reyes which was denied in an Order dated May 30,
1994.17 He then filed his appeal with the respondent Court of Appeals. While the appeal was
pending, Oscar died and he was substituted by his heirs, herein petitioners.
C.A:
On May 6, 1999, the respondent Court issued its assailed decision which affirmed the probate courts
order. It ruled that the probate courts order categorically stated that the inclusion of the subject
properties in the inventory of the estate of the deceased Ismael Reyes is provisional in character and
shall be without prejudice to the outcome of any action to be brought hereafter in the proper court on
the issue of ownership of the properties; that the provisional character of the inclusion of the
contested properties in the inventory as stressed in the order is within the jurisdiction of intestate
court.
IV. Issue
Whether the court a quo has no jurisdiction to determine the issue of ownership.
V. Ruling
Yes. The jurisdiction of the probate court merely relates to matters having to do with the
settlement of the estate and the probate of wills of deceased persons, and the appointment and
removal of administrators, executors, guardians and trustees.
The question of ownership is as a rule, an extraneous matter which the Probate Court cannot
resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should
not be included in the inventory of estate proceeding, the probate court may pass upon the title
thereto, but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a
separate action to resolve title.
Settled is the rule that the Regional Trial Court acting as a probate court exercises but limited
jurisdiction, thus it has no power to take cognizance of and determine the issue of title to property
claimed by a third person adversely to the decedent, unless the claimant and all other parties having
legal interest in the property consent, expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the question to the
Probate Court for adjudgment, or the interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced.
The facts obtaining in this case, however, do not call for the application of the exception to the
rule. It bears stress that the purpose why the probate court allowed the introduction of evidence on
ownership was for the sole purpose of determining whether the subject properties should be included
in the inventory which is within the probate courts competence. Thus, when private respondent Cesar
Reyes was appointed as administrator of the properties in the courts Order dated July 26, 1989, he
was ordered to submit a true inventory and appraisal of the real and personal properties of the estate
which may come into his possession or knowledge which private respondent complied with.

Case 25: The Heirs of Reyes vs. Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 25: The Heirs of Reyes vs. Reyes

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Case 25: The Heirs of Reyes vs. Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 25: THE HEIRS OF REYES vs.

I. PARTIES TO THE CASE

a. Petitioners: Heirs of Oscar Reyes

b. Respondent: Cesar Reyes

III. Procedural Posture

You might also like