GR 188921; (April, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188921 ; April 18, 2012
LEO C. ROMERO and DAVID AMANDO C. ROMERO, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA C. ROMERO and VITTORIO C. ROMERO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Leo and Amando Romero filed a complaint against their mother, Aurora, and brother, Vittorio, for the annulment of several deeds of sale covering multiple parcels of land. They alleged that upon their father Dante’s death in 1974, Aurora, as legal guardian, held properties in trust for her children. In 2005, through alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and duress, Vittorio caused Aurora to execute deeds of sale transferring these properties to him. Petitioners claimed the properties were part of their parents’ conjugal estate.
Respondents countered that the properties were Aurora’s paraphernal assets, acquired after Dante’s death, and that Vittorio had redeemed some from mortgage. They further argued that Aurora sold some lots as the attorney-in-fact for her children, an authority never revoked.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) correctly dismissed the complaint for annulment of sale on the ground that the properties are involved in a pending intestate proceeding.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The core legal principle applied is that a court cannot adjudicate properties under administration in an intestate estate without a prior definitive allocation of shares by the probate court. The properties claimed by petitioners are already the subject of Special Proceedings No. 5185, an intestate case for their father’s estate filed in 1976, which remains pending.
The RTC correctly invoked Section 3, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, which bars an heir from maintaining an action to recover title or possession of property from the estate until such property has been assigned to them by the probate court. The determination of whether the disputed properties are conjugal (and thus part of the estate) or are Aurora’s paraphernal assets is a matter that must first be resolved within the intestate proceedings. Allowing the annulment case to proceed would result in a collateral attack on the estate’s composition and risk conflicting rulings. The pendency of the special proceeding provides an adequate remedy, making the separate civil action premature. The Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the RTC’s dismissal for lack of grave abuse of discretion.