G.R. No. 233507 , February 10, 2021
Spouses Bernardo T. Constantino and Editha B. Constantino, Petitioners, vs. Alejandria N. Benitez, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Alejandria Benitez filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of her deceased husband, Romeo Benitez, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batac, Ilocos Norte (Spec. Proc. 4506-18). The court declared Alejandria, Analiza Benitez, and Fritzie Joy Benitez as Romeo’s only lawful heirs and appointed Alejandria as administrator. The proceedings were terminated after the execution of a Deed of Settlement. Separately, Alejandria and Analiza filed a petition in the RTC of Laoag City (CAD. Case No. 51) for the issuance of new owner’s duplicate copies of TCT Nos. T-27844 and T-26828, covering lots forming part of the estate, claiming the originals were lost. The cadastral court granted the petition and ordered the issuance of new titles. Subsequently, petitioners Spouses Constantino allegedly purchased the same lots from Ceazar Cu Benitez, Romeo’s son with another woman, Lolita Cu. The Spouses Constantino later learned of the cadastral court’s decision and filed a petition for annulment of that judgment (CA-G.R. SP No. 138997), which the Court of Appeals granted, canceling the new titles and reinstating the original TCTs in Romeo’s name. Meanwhile, in the intestate proceedings, the Spouses Constantino filed a Motion for Intervention and to exclude the subject lots from Romeo’s estate. The intestate court denied the motion, ruling the case was already final. Later, the intestate court granted Alejandria’s motion for a writ of possession over the lots. The Spouses Constantino filed a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 140213) assailing the orders granting the writ, but the Court of Appeals dismissed it, affirming the intestate court’s orders. The Spouses Constantino elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the motion for intervention filed by the Spouses Constantino in the intestate proceedings was a proper remedy to assert their claim of ownership over the subject properties.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that a motion for intervention was not the proper remedy. However, the Court set aside the CA decision and declared the intestate court’s orders and the writ of possession null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the intestate court, in a special proceeding for settlement of estate, has limited jurisdiction. It cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of the estate but are also claimed by outside parties adversely. The determination of ownership between the estate’s representative (Alejandria) and the Spouses Constantino, who claim ownership by purchase from a different heir (Ceazar), involves a contentious issue that must be resolved in an appropriate separate ordinary civil action. The intestate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued the writ of possession, which effectively awarded possession based on a claim of ownership, a matter beyond its authority in the summary settlement proceeding. The Court ordered Alejandria to surrender possession of the properties to the Spouses Constantino.