G.R. No. L-56504 and G.R. Nos. L-59867-68, May 7, 1987
POMPILLO VALERA and EUMELIA VALERA CABADO, petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE SANCHO Y. INSERTO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch 1, and MANUEL R. FABIANA, respondents. / EUMELIA V. CABADO, POMPILLO VALERA and HON. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL, petitioners-appellants, vs. MANUEL FABIANA, JOSE GARIN and HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Tenth Division), respondents-appellants.

FACTS

This case involves conflicting claims over an 18-hectare fishpond. In the intestate proceedings for the estate of spouses Rafael Valera and Consolacion Sarrosa, the administrators (Eumelia Cabado and Pompillo Valera) moved for the return of the fishpond from the heirs of a deceased daughter, Teresa Garin. The Garin heirs opposed, asserting ownership, evidenced by a title in their names. The probate court, presided by Judge Midpantao Adil, treated this as a claim for recovery of an estate asset under Rule 87, Section 6. After hearing, the court ordered the Garin heirs to reconvey the fishpond to the estate, finding an implied trust existed because the original leasehold was ostensibly sold to Teresa merely to support her children, with an understanding it would revert to Rafael Valera.
Subsequently, the probate court granted execution of its order. The sheriff served the writ on Manuel Fabiana, the fishpond’s occupant, who voluntarily surrendered possession, declaring he was a mere lessee of Jose Garin. After possession was delivered to the administrators, Fabiana filed a complaint-in-intervention in the probate court to assert his leasehold rights. Judge Adil dismissed the intervention as untimely, since execution had already been implemented. Fabiana then filed a separate action for forcible entry against the administrators in another branch of the CFI, presided by Judge Sancho Inserto, which ruled in Fabiana’s favor, ordering the administrators to vacate.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the probate court, having provisionally determined ownership for purposes of inventory and ordered the fishpond’s delivery to the estate, retains exclusive jurisdiction over its possession to the exclusion of a separate ejectment suit filed by a claimant to possessory rights.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the probate court’s jurisdiction and set aside the forcible entry judgment. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that once a probate court acquires jurisdiction over an estate, it retains jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts over all matters incident thereto, including the determination of questions of possession and ownership of properties alleged to belong to the estate, albeit provisionally for purposes of administration. The probate court’s order for reconveyance, even if provisional, was a legitimate exercise of its power under Rule 87 to secure estate assets. Fabiana, by voluntarily surrendering possession to the sheriff acting for the probate court, effectively submitted to its authority. His subsequent forcible entry action in another court constituted forum-shopping and an impermissible collateral attack on the probate court’s lawful orders. All claims regarding possession of the fishpond, including Fabiana’s leasehold rights, should be ventilated in the probate proceeding to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure the orderly settlement of the estate. The separate ejectment case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.