Case Digest: Jimenez vs. IAC, G.R. No. 75773, April 17, 1990

 Succession | Res Judicata

Ponente:
Fernan, CJ.

Recit Version:

Leonardo Jimenez and Consolacion Ungson had four children. Lino Jimenez acquired five parcels of land during their marriage. After Consolacion's death, Lino married Genoveva Caolboy and had seven more children. When Lino and Genoveva passed away, Virginia Jimenez filed a petition to administer their properties. 

Leonardo Jimenez, Jr. sought to exclude his father and siblings from the petition, claiming they were not Lino and Genoveva's children and had received their inheritance. The Probate Court excluded the disputed land based on Leonardo's evidence. In 1984, the heirs filed a complaint to recover the land, arguing that the probate court's decision was not conclusive and their claim was not barred by prescription or laches. 

The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' present action for recovery of possession and ownership is appropriately filed because as a general rule, a probate court can only pass upon questions of title provisionally. Since the probate, court's findings are not conclusive being prima facie, a separate proceeding is necessary to establish the ownership of the five (5) parcels of land. It has also been held that in a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve with finality. Res judicata does not exist because of the difference in the causes of actions.

Facts:

Leonardo (Lino) Jimenez and Consolacion Ungson were married and had four children: Alberto, Leonardo, Sr., Alejandra and Angeles. During their marriage, Lino acquired five parcels of land.

When Consolacion died, Lino married Genoveva Caolboy and had seven children: Tomas, Visitacion, Digno, Antonio, Amadeo, Modesto and Virginia.

In 1951, Lino died.

In 1978, Genoveva died.

In 1979, Virginia Jimenez filed a petition to be appointed as the administrator of the properties of Lino and Genoveva, listing the supposed heirs.

Leonardo Jimenez, Jr. filed a motion to exclude his father's name and those of Alberto, Alejandra, and Angeles from the petition, claiming they were not children of Lino and Genoveva and had already received their inheritance of five parcels of land.

Virginia Jimenez was appointed as the administrator of the estate and she included the disputed five parcels of land in the inventory.

Leonardo Jimenez, Jr. moved for the exclusion of these properties, presenting evidence of their prior adjudication to the children from the first marriage.

Probate Court: Ordered the exclusion of the five parcels of land from the inventory based on the evidence presented by Leonardo Jimenez, Jr., including tax declarations and a deed of sale.

CA: Dismissed the appeal since the petitioners' mother, had admitted that the subject parcels of land had been adjudicated to the children of the previous nuptial.

In 1984, petitioners filed an amended complaint to recover the five parcels of land and obtain an accounting of the produce, arguing that the probate court could not conclusively determine ownership and that their action was not barred by prescription or laches.

Trial Court: Dismissed the complaint based on res judicata.

CA: Dismissed the appeal.

Issue:

WoN the present action for reconveyance barred by prescription and/or laches. NO

Held:

We reverse. Petitioners' present action for recovery of possession and ownership is appropriately filed because as a general rule, a probate court can only pass upon questions of title provisionally. Since the probate, court's findings are not conclusive being prima facie, a separate proceeding is necessary to establish the ownership of the five (5) parcels of land. 

The patent reason is the probate court's limited jurisdiction and the principle that questions of title or ownership, which result in inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of the property, can only be settled in a separate action. 

All that the said court could do as regards said properties is determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is a dispute as to the ownership, then the opposing parties and the administrator have to resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate court cannot do so. 

The provisional character of the inclusion in the inventory of a contested property was again reiterated in the following cases: Pio Barreto Realty Development, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, Junquera vs. Borromeo, Borromeo vs. Canonoy, Recto vs. de la Rosa. It has also been held that in a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the probate court cannot resolve with finality. This pronouncement no doubt applies with equal force to an intestate proceeding as in the case at bar.

Res judicata does not exist because of the difference in the causes of actions. Specifically in S.P. No. 5346, the action was for the settlement of the intestate estate of Lino Jimenez and Genoveva Caolboy while Civil Case No. 16111 was an action for the recovery of possession and ownership of the five (5) parcels of land. Moreover, while admittedly, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V in S.P. No. 5346 had jurisdiction, the same was merely limited jurisdiction. Any pronouncement by said court as to title is not conclusive and could still be attacked in a separate proceeding. Civil Case No. 16111, on the other hand. was lodged before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch XXXVII in the exercise of the court's general jurisdiction. It was, in fact, such "separate or ordinary proceedings" contemplated by the rules for a final determination of the issue of ownership of the disputed properties. To repeat, since the determination of the question of title to the subject properties in S.P. 5346 was merely provisional, petitioners are not barred from instituting the appropriate action in Civil Case No. 16111.

Indeed, the grounds relied upon by private respondents in their motion to dismiss do not appear to be indubitable. Res judicata has been shown here to be unavailable and the other grounds of prescription and laches pleaded by private respondents are seriously disputed. The allegation in the complaint is that the heirs of Leonardo Jimenez, Sr. (referring to private respondents,) forcibly intruded into and took possession of the disputed properties only in 1978, after the death of Genoveva Caolboy. Since the action for reconveyance was instituted in 1984, it would appear that the same has not yet prescribed or otherwise barred by laches.

There are a number of factual issues raised by petitioners before the lower court which cannot be resolved without the presentation of evidence at a full-blown trial and which make the grounds for dismissal dubitable. Among others, the alleged admission made by petitioners' mother in the deed of sale is vehemently denied, as well as the fact itself of adjudication, there being no showing that the conjugal partnership of Lino Jimenez and Consolacion Ungson had been liquidated nor that a judicial or extra-judicial settlement of the estate of Lino Jimenez was undertaken whereby such adjudication could have been effected.

The grounds stated in the motion to dismiss not being indubitable, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 16111.

WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the respondent appellate court is hereby REVERSED. Civil Case No. 16111 is reinstated and the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch XXXVII is directed to proceed in said case with dispatch.

SO ORDERED.