Bernardo vs. CA

December 6, 2017 | Author: Mildred Donaire Cañoneo-Clemenia | Category: Probate, Will And Testament, Intestacy, Inheritance, Virtue
Share Embed Donate

Short Description



41. BERNARDO vs CA G.R. No. L–18148 February 28, 1963 RULE 73 - VENUE AND PROCESS Facts: Capili died in 1958, testate in which he disposed his properties in favor of his wife, cousins all surnamed Capili and Arturo, Deogracias (petitioner) and Eduardo, all surnamed Bernardo. Reyes (wife) died the following year. Upon petition of Deogracias Bernardo, executor of the estate of Capili, she was substituted by her collateral relatives and intestate heirs, namely, Marcos, Vicente, Francisco and Dominga, all surnamed Reyes; and Jose, Constancia, Raymunda and Elena, all surnamed Isidoro. The executor filed a project of partition in the estate proceedings in accordance with the terms of the will, adjudicating the estate of Capili among the testamentary heirs with the exception of Reyes, whose share was allotted to her collateral relatives. These relatives filed an opposition to the executor’s project of partition and submitted a counter-projection of their own claiming ½ of the properties mentioned in the will of the deceased Capili on the theory that they belong not to the latter alone but to the conjugal partnership of the spouses. The probate court issued an order declaring the donation void for the reason that it falls under Article 133 of the Civil Code which prohibits donation between spouses during the marriage. In the same order, the court disapproved both project of partitions and directed the executor to file another, dividing the property mentioned in the last will and testament of Capili and the properties mentioned in the deed of donation, between the instituted heirs of Capili and Reyes, upon the basis that the said properties were conjugal properties of the deceased spouses. Issue: Whether or not a probate court in a special proceeding had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the deed of donation in question and pass upon the question of title or ownership of the properties mentioned in the will. Held: The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The Court held that the determination of title to property is within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The probate court has the jurisdiction since there is a necessity to liquidate the conjugal partnership in order to determine the estate of the decedent which is to be distributed among heirs who are all parties to the proceedings, including the widow, now represented because of her death, by her heirs who have been substituted upon petition of the executor himself and who appeared voluntarily. The petitioners, by presenting their project of partition including therein the disputed lands (upon the claim that they were donated by the wife to her husband) put in question the issue of ownership of the properties is within the competence of the probate court.

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.