GR L 25010; (March, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25010 March 30, 1967
REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO, JOSE CUENCO BORROMEO, CRISPIN BORROMEO, VITALIANA BORROMEO, LILA MORRE DE TABOTABO, LAMBERTO MORRE, PATRICIA MORRE DE RANARIO, AURORA MORRE DE BORROMEO, REMEDIOS VDA. DE BORROMEO, MELINDA BORROMEO, RAMON OCAMPO, ISAGANI MORRE, and ROSARIO MORRE, petitioners, vs. HON. MATEO CANONOY, Judge, Cebu Court of First Instance, Branch III, TOMAS L. BORROMEO, FORTUNATO BORROMEO, and AMELIA BORROMEO, respondents.
FACTS
This is an original action for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction filed by petitioners to prohibit respondent Judge Mateo Canonoy from further proceeding with Civil Case No. R-7646. The case is related to G.R. No. L-18498, the testate estate proceeding of Vito Borromeo. In that probate case, the lower court denied probate to a purported will and also denied a motion filed by respondents Tomas, Amelia, and Fortunato Borromeo for the exclusion of thirteen lots from the estate inventory, claiming these lots had been sold by Vito Borromeo during his lifetime. This denial was provisional. Subsequently, respondents commenced Civil Case No. R-7646 against the Special Administrator of the Estate to recover ownership and possession of the same thirteen lots. The Special Administrator moved for a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses, seeking dismissal on the ground that the question of ownership was already involved in the appealed probate case (G.R. No. L-18498). The respondent judge denied this motion, prompting the present prohibition suit.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge should be prohibited from proceeding with Civil Case No. R-7646 for the recovery of ownership and possession of the thirteen lots, on the ground that the question of ownership is already involved in the probate proceedings in G.R. No. L-18498.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition and set aside the preliminary injunction. The Court held that the probate court, in G.R. No. L-18498, had no jurisdiction to determine with finality the question of ownership of the thirteen lots. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court ruled that such matter of ownership must be litigated in a separate action. A probate court may only provisionally rule on the inclusion or exclusion of property from an inventory, without prejudice to its final determination in a separate appropriate action. Therefore, Civil Case No. R-7646, being that separate action to finally determine ownership, could properly proceed. The pronouncement in G.R. No. L-18498 supported the continuation of the separate civil case. Costs were awarded against the private respondents.