De Leon vs. CA, G.R. No. 128781, August 6, 2002
De Leon vs. CA, G.R. No. 128781, August 6, 2002
128781 August 6, 2002 "1. Title No. T-36734 located at Polo, Bulacan with an
area of 14,119 sq. m. distributed as follows:
TERESITA N. DE LEON, ZENAIDA C. NICOLAS and the
HEIRS OF ANTONIO NICOLAS, petitioners, 1.1 10,110 sq. m. given to daughter Estrellita N.
vs. Visconde –
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. PABLO P. INVENTOR and
RAMON NICOLAS, respondents. 1.2 4,009 sq. m. given to son Antonio Nicolas
The factual background: 6. T-68554 located at Caloocan City with an area of 690
sq. m. given to son Ramon (Oppositor-Applicant herein)
Herein petitioner Teresita N. de Leon was appointed
administratrix of the estate of Rafael C. Nicolas in Sp. Proc. No. 7. T-10907 located at Caloocan City with an area of 310
C-1679, entitled, "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Rafael sq. m. given to son Ramon but was somehow transferred
C. Nicolas". Said case was subsequently consolidated with Sp. to Antonio Nicolas, and the property is now titled in the
Proc No. C-18102 and Civil Case No. C-17407.3 Deceased name of the latter’s widow, Zenaida Carlos Nicolas."
spouses Rafael and Salud Nicolas were the parents of
petitioner Teresita N. de Leon, Estrellita N. Vizconde, Antonio x x x x x x x x x."4
Nicolas (deceased husband of petitioner Zenaida Nicolas and
predecessor of the petitioners Heirs of Antonio Nicolas), Ramon On September 27, 1994, the RTC issued an Order directing
Nicolas and Roberto Nicolas. Ramon "to submit pertinent documents relative to the transfer
of the properties from the registered owners during their
On September 19, 1994, private respondent Ramon G. Nicolas, lifetime for proper determination of the court if such properties
an oppositor–applicant in the intestate proceedings, filed a should be collated, and set it for hearing with notice to the
"Motion for Collation," claiming that deceased Rafael Nicolas, present registered owners to show cause why their properties
during his lifetime, had given the following real properties to may not be included in the collation of properties." 5
his children by gratuitous title and that administratrix-
petitioner Teresita failed to include the same in the inventory of
the estate of the decedent:
On October 10, 1994, respondent Ramon filed an Amended The lot with an area of 310 sq. m. is supposedly
Motion for Collation specifying the properties to be collated and earmarked for Oppositor-applicant Ramon but was
attaching to said motion, the documents in support thereof, to somehow included in the Deed of Sale to son Antonio,
wit: and the property is now titled in the name of the latter’s
widow, Zenaida Carlos Nicolas;
"3. A more complete list of the properties to be collated
is as follows: 5. TCT No. T-68554 located at Caloocan City with an
area of 690 sq. m. where the ancestral home is presently
1. Title No. T-36734 located at Polo, Bulacan with an located;
area of 14,119 sq. m., xerox copy hereto attached as
Annex "A", distributed as follows: 6. Son Antonio received another property with an area of
1,876 sq. m. and sold for P850,000.00, hereto attached
1.1 10,110 sq. m. given to daughter Estrellita N. as Annex "F";
Visconde, under TCT No. V-554 of Valenzuela
Bulacan (Annex "B"), and later sold by Estrellita 7. Son Antonio received another property with an area of
to Amelia Lim Sy for P3,405,612.00 and the Deed 1,501 sq. m. and sold for P200,000.00, hereto attached
of Sale hereto attached as Annex "B-1"; as Annex "G";
"Accordingly, the Administratrix is hereby ordered to The Court has already set for hearing on July 21, 1995,
include the foregoing properties which were received at 8:30 a.m., the reception and/or presentation of
from the decedent for collation in the instant probate evidence in the issue of collated properties disposed
proceedings. before the death of Rafael Nicolas."12
"SO ORDERED."7 On November 4, 1996, the RTC removed petitioner from her
position as administratrix on ground of conflict of interest
We note that only those lots described under paragraphs 3.1.2, considering her claim that she paid valuable consideration for
3.2 and 4 of the "Amended Motion for Collation" were ordered the subject properties acquired by her from their deceased
included for collation.1âwphi1.nêt father and therefore the same should not be included in the
collation;13 and, ordered the hearing on the collation of
On November 18, 1994, petitioner Teresita N. de Leon filed a properties covered by TCT No. T-V-1211 and T-V-1210 only.14
Motion for Reconsideration alleging that the properties subject
of the Order "were already titled in their names years ago" 8 and On November 28, 1996, acting on the impression that the
that titles may not be collaterally attacked in a motion for collation of the real properties enumerated in the Order dated
collation. On February 23, 1995, the RTC issued an Order November 11, 1994 is maintained by the RTC, petitioner
denying said motion, ruling that it is within the jurisdiction of Teresita N. de Leon filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying
that her appointment as administratrix be maintained; and BE EXCLUDED FROM THE INVENTORY/ESTATE)
that the properties covered by TCT Nos. T-36989, T-33658, T- THEREBY ASSUMING WITHOUT ANY BASIS THAT
36987, T-40333, T-10907 and a portion of TCT No. T-13206 THESE PROPERTIES TO BE STILL PART OF THE
described as Lot 4-A with 4,009 square meters be declared and ESTATE OF RAFAEL NICOLAS WHEN THEY ARE NOT
decreed as the exclusive properties of the registered owners BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN SOLD WAY BACK IN 1979
mentioned therein and not subject to collation.15 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS TO PETITIONER
TERESITA N. DE LEON AND ANTONIO NICOLAS
The RTC denied said motion in its Order dated December 23, HUSBAND OF PETITIONER ZENAIDA NICOLAS."17
1996.16
After private respondent Ramon had filed his comment, and
Petitioners Teresita N. de Leon, Zenaida Nicolas (the surviving petitioners, their reply, and after hearing the oral arguments of
spouse of Antonio Nicolas) and the Heirs of Antonio Nicolas the parties, the Special Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals
filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, found the petition devoid of merit, ruling that the Order dated
prohibition and mandamus with prayer for a temporary November 11, 1994 directing the inclusion of the properties
restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction claiming therein enumerated in the estate of the deceased Rafael Nicolas
that: had already become final for failure of petitioners to appeal
from the order of collation; that the appeal of the petitioner
"I from the Orders dated November 4, 1996 and December 3,
1996 removing petitioner as administratrix is timely appealed;
"RESPONDENT JUDGE HAS ACTED IN EXCESS OF HIS and, observing that the notice of appeal and record on appeal
JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF appear to be unacted upon by the RTC, the appellate court
DISCRETION WHEN WITHOUT GIVING PETITIONERS resolved:
OPPORTUNITY TO VENTILATE THEIR APPEAL HE
INSISTED ON HEARING THE MATTERS ON THE "WHEREFORE, while finding no grave abuse of
APPOINTMENT OF A REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR AND discretion on the part of respondent Judge, he is hereby
COLLATION ON DECEMBER 24, 1996 AND RESETTING ORDERED to act on petitioner’s appeal on the matter of
ITS CONTINUATION TO JANUARY 21 and 28, 1997 the removal of petitioner as administratrix.
INSPITE OF THE PENDENCY OF THE NOTICE OF
APPEAL AND/OR RE-AFFIRMATION OF THE NOTICE SO ORDERED."18
OF APPEAL FROM WHICH ACTS THERE IS NO APPEAL
NOR ANY PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN Hence, herein petition anchored on the following assignments
THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW." of error:
"RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE "RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT
OF DISCRETION WHEN HE DID NOT INCLUDE IN HIS DECLARED IN THE QUESTIONED DECISION THAT
ORDER-ANNEX J THE HEARING ON THE FINAL THE ORDER OF THE COURT A QUO DATED
DETERMINATION OF TCT NOS. T-36734, T-36989, T- NOVEMBER 11, 1994 WAS FINAL.
33658, T-36987, T-40333 and T-10907 (WHETHER
THEY ARE STILL PART OF THE ESTATE OR SHOULD "SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR</P>
"RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT pay for these properties as evidenced by the testimony of
DECLARED IN THE QUESTIONED RESOLUTION THAT credible witnesses who are relatives of spouses decedents.
THERE WAS NO COGENT OR COMPELLING REASON
TO DISTURB THE QUESTIONED DECISION." 19 We find the petition partly meritorious.
Petitioners claim that: private respondent never presented any Contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals that the Order
document to prove that the properties transferred by their of November 11, 1994 had become final for failure of
deceased parents to petitioners are by gratuitous title; private petitioners to appeal therefrom in due time, we hold that said
respondent never notified petitioner of any hearing on said Order is interlocutory in nature. Our pronouncement in Garcia
documents to give them opportunity to show cause why their v. Garcia supports this ruling:
properties should not be collated; the assailed Order dated
November 11, 1994 is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, "The court which acquires jurisdiction over the
confiscatory, depriving them of due process; the said order is properties of a deceased person through the filing of the
interlocutory in nature and therefore non-appealable; the corresponding proceedings, has supervision and control
properties acquired by petitioner Teresita N. de Leon and her over the said properties, and under the said power, it is
deceased brother Antonio Nicolas, married to petitioner its inherent duty to see that the inventory submitted by
Zenaida C. Nicolas and their children, were sold to them as the administrator appointed by it contains all the
evidenced by public documents; and, the properties were properties, rights and credits which the law requires the
already titled in their respective names or sold to third persons. administrator to set out in his inventory. In compliance
with this duty the court has also inherent power to
Private respondent contends that: due process has been determine what properties, rights and credits of the
afforded the petitioners when the RTC resolved the issue of deceased should be included in or excluded from the
collation of the subject properties after hearing; petitioner inventory. Should an heir or person interested in the
deliberately omitted certain material facts in the petition to properties of a deceased person duly call the court’s
mislead the Court because petitioners were actually given at attention to the fact that certain properties, rights
least three (3) times the opportunity to ventilate and oppose the or credits have been left out in the inventory, it is
issue of collation; as stated by the appellate court in the likewise the court’s duty to hear the observations,
Resolution promulgated on February 10, 1997, both parties with power to determine if such observations should
affirmed that the RTC had proceeded to conduct hearings on be attended to or not and if the properties referred
January 21 and 28, 1997 as originally scheduled; presentation to therein belong prima facie to the intestate, but
of evidence had been terminated and the twin issues of the no such determination is final and ultimate in
appointment of a new administratrix and the collation of two nature as to the ownership of the said
(2) properties covered by TCT No. T-V-1210 and T-V-1211 were properties."21 (Emphasis supplied)
already submitted for resolution to the court below;20 subject
properties are collatable under Articles 1601 and 1071 of the A probate court, whether in a testate or intestate
Civil Code and Section 2 of Rule 90 of the Rules of Court and proceeding,22 can only pass upon questions of title
the ruling in Guinguing v. Abuton and Abuton, 48 Phil. 144; provisionally.23 The rationale therefor and the proper recourse
petitioner failed to present evidence that there was valuable of the aggrieved party are expounded in Jimenez v. Court of
consideration for these properties and failed to rebut the Appeals:
evidence that petitioners do not have the financial capability to
"The patent reason is the probate court’s limited Private respondent’s reliance on Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules
jurisdiction and the principle that questions of title or of Court, to wit:
ownership, which result in inclusion or exclusion from
the inventory of the property, can only be settled in a "SEC. 2. Questions as to advancement to be
separate action. determined. – Questions as to advancement made, or
alleged to have been made, by the deceased to any heir
"All that the said court could do as regards said may be heard and determined by the court having
properties is determine whether they should or should jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the final order
not be included in the inventory or list of properties to of the court thereon shall be binding on the person
be administered by the administrator. If there is a raising the question and on the heir."
dispute as to the ownership, then the opposing parties
and the administrator have to resort to an ordinary in support of his claim that the assailed Order is a final order
action for a final determination of the conflicting claims and therefore appealable and that due to petitioners’ failure to
of title because the probate court cannot do so."24 appeal in due time, they are now bound by said Order, is not
feasible.
Further, In Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, we held:
What seems to be a conflict between the above-quoted Rule
"[A] probate court or one in charge of proceedings and the afore–discussed jurisprudence that the Order in
whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or question is an interlocutory and not a final order is more
determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the apparent than real. This is because the questioned Order was
estate and which are claimed to belong to outside erroneously referred to as an order of collation both by the RTC
parties. All that the said court could do as regards said and the appellate court. For all intents and purposes, said
properties is to determine whether they should or Order is a mere order including the subject properties in the
should not be included in the inventory or list of inventory of the estate of the decedent.
properties to be administered by the administrator. If
there is no dispute, well and good, but if there is, then The Court held in Valero Vda. de Rodriguez v. Court of
the parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties Appeals26 that the order of exclusion (or inclusion) is not a
have to resort to an ordinary action for a final final order; that it is interlocutory in the sense that it did not
determination of the conflicting claims of title because settle once and for all the title to the subject lots; that the
the probate court cannot do so."25 prevailing rule is that for the purpose of determining whether a
certain property should or should not be included in the
Guided by the above jurisprudence, it is clear that the Court of inventory, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto
Appeals committed an error in considering the assailed Order but such determination is not conclusive and is subject to the
dated November 11, 1994 as final or binding upon the heirs or final decision in a separate action regarding ownership which
third persons who dispute the inclusion of certain properties in may be instituted by the parties.
the intestate estate of the deceased Rafael Nicolas. Under the
foregoing rulings of the Court, any aggrieved party, or a third In the Rodriguez case, the Court distinguished between an
person for that matter, may bring an ordinary action for a final order of collation and an order of exclusion from or
determination of the conflicting claims. inclusion in the estate’s inventory, thus:
"We hold further that the dictum of the Court of Appeals partition and distribution when the legitimes of the
and the probate court that the two disputed lots are not compulsory heirs have to be determined."27
subject to collation was a supererogation and was not
necessary to the disposition of the case which merely In the light of the foregoing, Section 2, Rule 90 should be
involved the issue of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the interpreted in the context of Section 1 of the same Rule, to wit:
inventory of the testator’s estate. The issue of collation
was not yet justiciable at that early stage of the testate "Section 1. When order for distribution of residue made. –
proceeding. It is not necessary to mention in the order of When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of
exclusion the controversial matter of collation. administration, the allowance to the widow, and
inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in
"Whether collation may exist with respect to the two lots accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the
and whether Mrs. Rustia’s Torrens titles thereto are application of the executor or administrator, or of a
indefeasible are matters that may be raised later or may person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon
not be raised at all. How those issues should be notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the
resolved, if and when they are raised, need not be persons entitled to the same, naming them and the
touched upon in the adjudication of this appeal. proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and
such person may demand and recover their respective
"The intestate and testate proceedings for the settlement shares from the executor or administrator, or any other
of the estates of the deceased Valero spouses were person having the same in his possession. If there is a
consolidated, as ordered by the lower court on November controversy before the court as to who are the lawful
21, 1974, so that the conjugal estate of the deceased heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive
spouses may be properly liquidated, as contemplated in shares to which each person is entitled under the law,
section 2, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court and Act No. the controversy shall be heard and decided as in
3176. ordinary cases.
"We have examined the expedientes of the two cases. We No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the
found that the proceedings have not yet reached the obligations above mentioned has been made or provided
stage when the question of collation or advancement to for, unless the distributes, or any of them, give a bond,
an heir may be raised and decided. The numerous debts in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the
of the decedents are still being paid. The net remainder payment of said obligations within such time as the
(remanente liquido) of their conjugal estate has not yet court directs."
been determined. On the other hand, up to this time, no
separate action has been brought by the appellants to Based thereon, we find that what the parties and the lower
nullify Mrs. Rustia’s Torrens titles to the disputed lots or courts have perceived to be as an Order of Collation is nothing
to show that the sale was in reality a donation. more than an order of inclusion in the inventory of the estate
which, as we have already discussed, is an interlocutory order.
"In this appeal, it is not proper to pass upon the The motion for collation was filed with the probate court at the
question of collation and to decide whether Mrs. Rustia’s early stage of the intestate estate proceedings. We have
titles to the disputed lots are questionable. The examined the records of the case and we found no indication
proceedings below have not reached the stage of that the debts of the decedents spouses have been paid and
the net remainder of the conjugal estate have already been
determined, and the estates of the deceased spouses at the judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared
time filing of the motion for collation were ready for partition inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given
and distribution. In other words, the issue on collation is still to it.29 For it to be considered as a valid final order, the RTC
premature. must then first rule and state in its order whether the
properties covered by TCT Nos. T-36734, T-36989, T-33658, T-
And even if we consider, en arguendo, that said assailed Order 36987, T-40333, T-10907 and the 4,009 square meter lot were
is a collation order and a final order, still, the same would have acquired by petitioners from the deceased parents of the
no force and effect upon the parties. It is a hornbook doctrine parties by onerous or gratuitous title; and must specifically
that a final order is appealable. As such, the Order should have state in its order the reasons why it ordered the subject
expressed therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the laws properties collated. It is only then that the order of collation
on which it is based as mandated by Section 14, Article VIII of may be the subject of a motion for reconsideration and/or
the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, which appeal within the 15-day reglementary period. Until and unless
provides: the constitutional mandate is complied with, any appeal from
said Order would have been premature.
"SEC. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the Either way therefore, whether the Order in question is a final
facts and the law on which it is based. or interlocutory order, it is a reversible error on the part of the
appellate court to rule that the so-called order of collation
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a dated November 11, 1994 had already attained finality.
decision of the court shall be refused due course or
denied without stating the legal basis therefore." As to the prayer of petitioners that the RTC be ordered to give
due course to their notice of appeal from the Orders dated
An examination of the subject Order as quoted earlier, 28 readily November 4, 1996 and December 23, 1996 removing petitioner
reveals that the presiding Judge failed to comply with the said Teresita N. de Leon as administratrix of the estate of private
constitutional mandate. The assailed Order did not state the parties’ deceased parents,30 to approve their record on
reasons for ordering the collation of the properties enumerated appeal31 and to elevate the records of Special Proceeding No. C-
therein. The Order simply directed the inclusion of certain real 1679 to the Court of Appeals – It is not disputed by the parties
properties in the estate of the deceased. It did not declare that that said Orders are appealable. In fact, the Court of Appeals
the properties enumerated therein were given to the children of had correctly directed the RTC to give due course to petitioners’
the deceased gratuitously, despite the title in the children’s appeal and this is not assailed by the private respondent.
names or deeds of sale in their favor. Moreover, in his
Comment, private respondent makes mention of the But, the approval or disapproval of the record on appeal is not
testimonies of his witnesses but these were not even mentioned a proper subject matter of the present petition for review on
in the Order of November 11, 1994. Petitioner would have been certiorari as it is not even a subject-matter in CA-G.R. SP No.
deprived of due process as they would be divested of the 42958. Whether or not the record on appeal should be
opportunity of being able to point out in a motion for approved is a matter that is subject to the sound discretion of
reconsideration or on appeal, any errors of facts and/or law the RTC, provided that Sections 6 to 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of
considering that there were no facts or laws cited in support of Court are observed by appellant.
the assailed Order of collation. As a final Order, it is, on its face
patently null and void. It could have never become final. A void Finally, the elevation of the records of Special Proceedings No.
judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid C-1679 to the Court of Appeals for the purpose of petitioners’
appeal from the order removing the administratrix is
unnecessary where a record on appeal is allowed under the
Rules of Court. The court a quo loses jurisdiction over the
subject of the appeal upon the approval of the record on appeal
and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties;
but retains jurisdiction over the remaining subject matter not
covered by the appeal.32
No costs.
SO ORDERED.