G.R. No. L-4377; January 23, 1953
FERNANDO BAQUIAL, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIX AMIHAN, Administrator of Juan Amihan and Hilaria Cabahug, deceased spouses, and ENRIQUE AMIHAN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellee Fernando Baquial filed an action to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Bohol, covered by Certificate of Title No. 1012 in the name of the deceased spouses Juan Amihan and Hilaria Cabahug, who acquired it via homestead patent. Baquial alleges he purchased the land from the widow, Hilaria Cabahug, on November 12, 1946, for P2,000 and was in possession until 1948 when defendant-appellant Felix Amihan, as administrator of Juan Amihan’s estate, deprived him of possession. Juan Amihan died around 1946, before the sale. In the estate settlement proceedings (Special Proceeding No. 88), the administrator filed a motion for authority to sell the land. Baquial opposed, claiming prior purchase. The court (Judge Jose S. Rodriguez) denied the opposition on March 26, 1949, finding the deed of sale’s execution and consideration unproven and noting its non-registration, and authorized the sale. However, a subsequent judge held the approval of the sale in abeyance, ruling the probate court lacked jurisdiction to try the question of ownership and instructing the parties to institute a separate civil action. Consequently, Baquial filed the present civil case (No. 499). Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the March 26, 1949 order dismissing Baquial’s opposition was a final and binding judgment. The motion to dismiss was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the order of the probate court dated March 26, 1949, dismissing Fernando Baquial’s opposition to the administrator’s petition for authority to sell the land, constitutes a final judgment or order that renders the question of ownership res judicata, barring the present separate civil action.

RULING

No. The appeal is dismissed. The March 26, 1949 order is not a final and binding judgment on the question of ownership that creates res judicata. First, a probate court in estate settlement proceedings lacks jurisdiction to make a final or ultimate determination of title as between the estate and a third-party claimant. Its power is limited to a prima facie determination for purposes of administration, without prejudice to the right of interested parties to raise the ownership question in a proper separate action. Second, the order authorizing the sale never became final because it was subsequently suspended by the court’s later order holding the approval of the sale in abeyance. An order for sale is not final until an actual sale is made and confirmed. Third, the administrator did not object to or appeal from the subsequent order holding the approval in abeyance, and thus cannot claim the prior order remained unmodified and final. Lastly, the order denying the motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and not appealable.