G.R. No. 167975 June 17, 2015
GILDA JARDELEZA, (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY: ERNESTO ARDELEZA, JR., TEODORO MARIA JARDELEZA, ROLANDO L. JARDELEZA, MA GLENDA JARDELEZA-UY, and MELECIO GIL JARDELEZA, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES MELECIO and ELIZABETH JARDELEZA, JMB TRADERS, INC., and TEODORO JARDELEZA, Respondents.

FACTS

On March 7, 1997, Spouses Gilda Jardeleza and Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages (Civil Case No. 23499) against respondents concerning several parcels of their conjugal lands. The case was raffled to Branch 33 of the RTC in Iloilo City. During its pendency, Ernesto died on January 13, 2004. Administration proceedings (Special Proceedings No. 04-7705) were commenced in Branch 38 of the RTC, and Teodoro Jardeleza was appointed administrator of Ernesto’s estate. Teodoro, in his capacity as administrator, filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 23499, arguing that since one defendant, Melecio, was also an heir of Ernesto, the properties should be considered “advances in the inheritance” and the claim should be heard in the intestate proceedings. Branch 33 granted the motion to dismiss on January 31, 2005, based on its finding that the motion carried the signatures of all parties and their counsels. Gilda sought reconsideration, arguing she had a personal cause of action distinct from Ernesto’s, she did not consent to the dismissal, and Teodoro should have first sought approval from the intestate court (Branch 38). Branch 33 denied her motion on April 7, 2005.

ISSUE

Did Branch 33 err in dismissing Civil Case No. 23499?

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Branch 33 erred in dismissing the case. The appeal was meritorious. First, the dismissal was based on a misrepresentation, as the motion to dismiss only bore the conformity of Teodoro as administrator, not of all parties. Teodoro’s conformity bound only the intestate estate of Ernesto, not Gilda, whose express consent was indispensable since the properties pertained to their conjugal partnership. Second, the action for reconveyance survived Ernesto’s death, as the cause of action primarily affected property rights. Third, the probate court’s (Branch 38) jurisdiction is limited to settlement of the estate and does not extend to the final determination of questions of ownership, which is better lodged in a separate action like Civil Case No. 23499. Any determination of ownership by a probate court is merely provisional. Branch 33 shirked its responsibility to decide the ownership issue. Lastly, all heirs of Gilda and Ernesto, including the respondents, had united in seeking to undo the dismissal to proceed to trial on the merits. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the assailed orders, reinstated Civil Case No. 23499, and directed Branch 33 to continue proceedings with dispatch.