G.R. Nos. L-63253-54, April 27, 1989
PABLO RALLA, petitioner, vs. HON. ROMULO P. UNTALAN, HON. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, AND LEONIE RALLA, PETER RALLA AND MARINELLA RALLA, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from the probate of the will of Rosendo Ralla, who bequeathed his entire estate to his son, petitioner Pablo Ralla, excluding his other son, Pedro. During the pendency of the probate proceedings (Special Proceedings No. 564), Pedro filed a separate civil action (Civil Case No. 2023) for the partition of the estate of their deceased mother, Paz Escarella. In 1967, the brothers entered into a project of partition for sixty-three parcels of land from their mother’s estate, which was approved by the court, and the partition case was declared closed and terminated.
Years later, a new petition for the probate of Rosendo’s will was filed. Pablo intervened, and the probate was granted. The appointed special administrator, Teodorico Almine (Pablo’s son-in-law), took possession of properties, including the sixty-three parcels already partitioned from their mother’s estate. The heirs of Pedro (private respondents) moved to exclude these parcels from Rosendo’s estate proceedings. Initially, respondent Judge Untalan ordered their inclusion but later, in his July 16, 1981 Order, reconsidered and ruled to exclude them, upholding the validity of the prior partition. Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the sixty-three parcels of land, previously partitioned in a separate civil case involving the estate of Paz Escarella, should be included in the probate proceedings for the estate of Rosendo Ralla.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the exclusion of the sixty-three parcels. The legal logic is clear: the partition in Civil Case No. 2023 was a valid and final judgment concerning a distinct estate—that of the mother, Paz Escarella. It was not a partition of properties under Rosendo Ralla’s will. The rule that there can be no valid partition among heirs until a will is probated applies only to properties embraced in that will. Here, the properties were part of a different estate and were the subject of a separate, concluded litigation.
The Court emphasized that the project of partition was judicially approved, and distribution was fully carried out, with the heirs receiving their respective shares. A partition that has been approved by the court and executed attains finality and constitutes a bar to any further litigation over the included properties. The heirs are precluded from collaterally attacking its validity. Therefore, Judge Untalan correctly reconsidered his initial erroneous order. The subsequent attempt to include these lands in Rosendo’s estate, administered by Pablo’s son-in-law, was an improper collateral attack on a final and binding partition agreement. The exclusion order was a valid correction to respect the concluded partition.