G.R. No. L-21033 December 28, 1970
TESTATE ESTATE OF ALEJANDRO GONZALES y TOLENTINO, deceased, LORETO ESGUERRA (GONZALES) MANGALIMAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. MANUEL I. GONZALES, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Loreto Esguerra (Gonzales) Mangaliman is an illegitimate daughter and legatee of the late Alejandro Gonzales y Tolentino, entitled to a one-eighth undivided portion of Hacienda Evangelista. As a minor, her share was under the guardianship of her half-brother, Alejandro Gonzales, Jr. Respondent-appellee Manuel I. Gonzales, a legitimate son and former administrator of the estate, was granted an administrator’s fee of P11,000 by a probate court order dated December 2, 1943, based on a compromise agreement. Alleging non-payment, respondent obtained a writ of execution, leading to the levy and eventual sheriff’s sale of the Hacienda Evangelista to him on July 27, 1950. After the redemption period lapsed, a final deed of sale was executed on October 31, 1951. Petitioner, upon coming of age, filed a motion in the probate court to set aside the sale, which was denied on October 15, 1954. She did not appeal but filed a separate civil case for damages against her guardian. In April 1962, petitioner allegedly discovered that respondent had already been paid more than the P11,000 fee he claimed. Contending that respondent acquired the property through fraud and misrepresentation, petitioner filed a petition in the same probate court on April 21, 1962, for reconveyance of her one-eighth share. The probate court, in an order dated November 12, 1962, declined jurisdiction, ruling that the question of title or ownership involved must be resolved in an independent suit.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila, acting as a probate court, has jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s petition for reconveyance of her share in the Hacienda Evangelista based on alleged fraud.

RULING

The probate court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for reconveyance. The jurisdiction of a probate court is limited and special, confined to matters of probate and special proceedings as provided by law, and does not extend to the adjudication of collateral matters. The petition, while framed as one for reconveyance, in fact calls for the nullification of a final order of execution and a subsequent sale upon grounds of fraud, giving rise to a controversy involving rights over real property that requires the presentation of evidence and determination of legal questions properly ventilated in a court of general jurisdiction. The order appealed from is affirmed, without prejudice to petitioner-appellant filing an independent action in the proper court.