Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • GILDA JARDELEZA, (DECEASED) Vs SPOUSES MELECIO AND ELIZABETH JARDELEZA, JMB TRADERS, INC., AND TEODORO JARDELEZA

    Uploaded by

    nicole5anne5dddddd
    65 views2 pages
    1) Spouses Gilda Jardeleza and Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza commenced a civil case against respondents regarding several parcels of their conjugal lands. Ernesto later died, and administration proceedings were commenced in another branch of the RTC. 2) The administrator filed a motion to dismiss the civil case, arguing the properties should be considered advances in inheritance. The motion was granted. Gilda sought reconsideration arguing she did not consent to dismissal. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that Branch 33 erred in dismissing the case. Gilda's consent was required as the properties pertained to her conjugal partnership. The civil case survived Ernesto's death, and the probate court lacked jurisdiction to determine

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    GILDA JARDELEZA, (DECEASED) vs SPOUSES MELECIO AND ELIZABETH JARDELEZA, JMB TRADERS, INC., AND TEODORO JARDELEZA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Spouses Gilda Jardeleza and Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza commenced a civil case against respondents regarding several parcels of their conjugal lands. Ernesto later died, and administration proceedings were commenced in another branch of the RTC. 2) The administrator filed a motion to dismiss the civil case, arguing the properties should be considered advances in inheritance. The motion was granted. Gilda sought reconsideration arguing she did not consent to dismissal. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that Branch 33 erred in dismissing the case. Gilda's consent was required as the properties pertained to her conjugal partnership. The civil case survived Ernesto's death, and the probate court lacked jurisdiction to determine

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views2 pages

    GILDA JARDELEZA, (DECEASED) Vs SPOUSES MELECIO AND ELIZABETH JARDELEZA, JMB TRADERS, INC., AND TEODORO JARDELEZA

    Uploaded by

    nicole5anne5dddddd
    1) Spouses Gilda Jardeleza and Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza commenced a civil case against respondents regarding several parcels of their conjugal lands. Ernesto later died, and administration proceedings were commenced in another branch of the RTC. 2) The administrator filed a motion to dismiss the civil case, arguing the properties should be considered advances in inheritance. The motion was granted. Gilda sought reconsideration arguing she did not consent to dismissal. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that Branch 33 erred in dismissing the case. Gilda's consent was required as the properties pertained to her conjugal partnership. The civil case survived Ernesto's death, and the probate court lacked jurisdiction to determine

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    3B Spec Pro Digests

    GILDA JARDELEZA, (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED should be considered as "advances in the


    BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY: ERNESTO JARDELEZA, inheritance," and, accordingly, the claim for
    JR., TEODORO MARIA JARDELEZA, ROLANDO L. reconveyance should be heard in Special
    JARDELEZA, MA. GLENDA JARDELEZA-UY, AND Proceedings by Branch 38.
    MELECIO GIL JARDELEZA, PETITIONERS, VS.
    SPOUSES MELECIO AND ELIZABETH RTC Ruling:
    JARDELEZA, JMB TRADERS, INC., AND
    TEODORO JARDELEZA, RESPONDENTS. Branch 33 issued the first assailed order granting the
    2015-06-17 motion to dismiss. Branch 33 based its dismissal of
    Civil Case on the fact that the motion to dismiss filed
    G.R.No: 167975 Ponente: BERSAMIN, J.:
    by Teodoro, in his capacity as administrator, bore the
    signatures of all the parties and their respective
    Related Article: Tickler:
    counsel,

    Gilda sought reconsideration, arguing that she had a


    Doctrine of the Case
    personal cause of action of her own distinct from that
    of Ernesto; that she neither signed nor consented to
    Spouses Gilda Jardeleza and Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza,
    the dismissal of Civil Case; and that Teodoro should
    Sr. (Ernesto)
    have first sought the approval of Branch 38 as the
    intestate court considering that the estate could
    potentially recover properties belonging to it.
    Parties – Roles
    Branch 33 denied Gilda's motion for reconsideration.
    Spouses Gilda Jardeleza and Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza,
    Sr. (Ernesto) – commenced the civil case
    Issue/s
    Melecio and Elizabeth Jardeleza, JMB Traders, Inc.,
    and Teodoro Jardeleza (Teodoro) – defendants to
    WON Branch 33 erred in dismissing the action for
    civil case
    reconveyance. (YES)
    Teodoro – administrator
    Melecio - one of the defendants, was also an heir of
    Ernesto
    Ruling
    Facts

    Records show that the motion to dismiss carried only


    Spouses Gilda Jardeleza and Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza,
    the conformity of Teodoro. In addition to being a
    Sr. (Ernesto) commenced a Civil Case against
    misrepresentation, Teodoro's conformity to the
    respondents Spouses Melecio and Elizabeth
    dismissal would stand only for the intestate estate of
    Jardeleza, JMB Traders, Inc., and Teodoro Jardeleza
    Ernesto and did not bind Gilda. Gilda's express
    (Teodoro) respecting several parcels of their conjugal
    conformity was indispensable considering that the
    lands. It was raffled to Branch 33 of the RTC. On
    properties sought to be reconveyed pertained to the
    January 13, 2004, during the pendency of the case,
    conjugal partnership of Gilda and Ernesto.
    Ernesto died.

    In a cause of action that survives, the wrong


    Hence, administration proceedings were commenced
    complained of primarily and principally affects
    in the RTC (assigned to Branch 38), and Teodoro was
    property and property rights, the injuries to the person
    appointed as the administrator of the estate. The
    being merely incidental; in a cause of action that does
    other heirs questioned the appointment in the Court of
    not survive, the injury complained of is to the person,
    Appeals (CA).
    the property and rights of property affected being
    incidental. Verily, said Civil Case survived the death
    Meanwhile, Teodoro, in his capacity as the
    of Ernesto.
    administrator, filed a motion to dismiss on the first civil
    case, on the ground that Melecio, one of the
    The jurisdiction of the RTC as a probate court relates
    defendants, was also an heir of Ernesto, so the
    only to matters having to do with the settlement of the
    properties subject of the action for reconveyance

    Nicole Deocaris
    3B Spec Pro Digests

    estate and probate of a will of a deceased person and 23499; DIRECTS the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33,
    does not extend to the determination of a question of in Iloilo City to continue the proceedings in Civil Case
    ownership that arises during the proceedings. This is No. 23499 with dispatch; and ORDERS the
    true whether or not the property is alleged to belong respondents to pay the costs of suit.
    to the estate. Exception:

    a. The claimants to the property are all heirs of


    the deceased and they agree to submit the
    question for determination by the probate or
    administration court and the interests of third
    parties are not prejudiced;
    b. The purpose is to determine whether or not
    certain properties should be included in the
    inventory, in which case the probate or
    administration court may decide prima facie
    the ownership of the property, but such
    determination is not final and is without
    prejudice to the right of interested parties to
    ventilate the question of ownership in a
    proper action.

    Otherwise put, the determination is provisional, not


    conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a
    separate action to resolve title by a court of
    competent jurisdiction.

    The Civil Case had been instituted in 1997 and was


    pending trial before Branch 33 prior to the bringing of
    the probate proceedings in 2004. In dismissing the
    Civil Case, Branch 33 shirked from its responsibility to
    decide the issue of ownership and to let the probate
    court decide the same. Branch 33 thereby did not
    consider that any decision that Branch 38 as a
    probate court would render on the title and on
    whether or not property should be included or
    excluded from the inventory of the assets of the
    estate would at best be merely provisional in
    character, and would yield to a final determination in a
    separate action.

    Lastly, the comments of the heirs of Gilda and


    Ernesto reveal that they no longer had any objection
    to the overturning of the dismissal. With all the heirs
    of Gilda and Ernesto having thus united to seek the
    undoing of the dismissal in order to have a trial on the
    merits on the question of ownership of the affected
    properties, the dismissal should now be undone.

    Disposition:
    WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for
    review on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE
    the assailed orders by the Regional Trial Court,
    Branch 33, in Iloilo City; REINSTATES Civil Case No.

    Nicole Deocaris

    You might also like