G.R. No. 128781; August 6, 2002
TERESITA N. DE LEON, ZENAIDA C. NICOLAS and the HEIRS OF ANTONIO NICOLAS, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. PABLO P. INVENTOR and RAMON NICOLAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Teresita N. de Leon was the appointed administratrix of the intestate estate of Rafael C. Nicolas. Private respondent Ramon G. Nicolas, an oppositor-applicant and a child of the decedent, filed a “Motion for Collation” claiming that several real properties had been given by Rafael Nicolas during his lifetime to his children, including petitioners Teresita and Antonio Nicolas (represented by his widow Zenaida and heirs), by gratuitous title and were not included in the estate inventory. The properties listed included lots in Polo, Bulacan and Caloocan City. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), in an Order dated November 11, 1994, directed the administratrix to include specified properties for collation. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing the properties were titled in their names years prior and that titles cannot be collaterally attacked. The RTC denied the motion, asserting its jurisdiction to determine collation. Subsequently, the RTC removed Teresita as administratrix due to a conflict of interest, as she claimed she paid valuable consideration for the properties. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the RTC’s orders. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that the assailed orders were interlocutory and not appealable, and that certiorari was not the proper remedy. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, specifically in ruling that the RTC’s Order dated November 11, 1994 (directing collation) and subsequent related orders were merely interlocutory and not subject to appeal, and that certiorari was an improper remedy.

RULING

The Supreme Court PARTLY GRANTED the petition. It held that the RTC’s Order dated November 11, 1994, which directed the collation of specific titled properties, and all subsequent orders emanating from it, were indeed interlocutory and provisional. The probate court’s determination on the inclusion or exclusion of properties for collation is not final and does not constitute a final adjudication of title ownership. The probate court has limited jurisdiction and cannot conclusively rule on questions of title; its orders regarding collation are merely preliminary and subject to the final outcome of a separate ordinary action for the determination of ownership. Therefore, the CA correctly ruled that certiorari was not the proper remedy against such interlocutory orders. However, the Supreme Court modified the CA decision by clarifying that the said orders are without prejudice to any heir, administrator, or opposing party resorting to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title. Furthermore, the Supreme Court directed the RTC to act immediately on petitioners’ appeal from the Orders dated November 4, 1996 (removing Teresita as administratrix) and December 23, 1996 (denying reconsideration), as these orders were final with respect to the issue of administration and thus appealable.