G.R. No. L-26695. January 31, 1972.
JUANITA LOPEZ GUILAS, petitioner, vs. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA AND ALEJANDRO LOPEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Jacinta Limson de Lopez died, leaving a will that instituted her husband, Alejandro Lopez, as her sole heir. Prior to her death, the spouses had legally adopted Juanita Lopez Guilas. Jacinta, however, never amended her will to include Juanita. Upon Jacinta’s death, the will was probated, and Alejandro was appointed executor. Subsequently, Alejandro and Juanita jointly submitted a project of partition, which was approved by the probate court. This partition allocated two specific parcels of land (Lots 3368 and 3441) to Juanita and the remainder of the estate to Alejandro. The court later issued an order declaring the testate proceedings closed and terminated.
Years later, Juanita filed a petition within the same testate proceedings, seeking delivery and possession of the two lots allocated to her. Alejandro opposed, arguing that the probate court had lost jurisdiction because the proceedings had been officially closed years prior. He contended that Juanita’s remedy was a separate civil action and that she was guilty of laches. The lower court, by agreement of the parties, suspended resolution on Juanita’s delivery petition pending the outcome of a separate civil case for annulment of the partition that Juanita had also filed.

ISSUE

Whether the probate court retained jurisdiction to order the executor to deliver the hereditary share adjudicated to an heir in an approved project of partition, despite a prior order declaring the proceedings closed and terminated.

RULING

Yes, the probate court retained jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that the termination of probate proceedings is determined not merely by a court order declaring the case closed, but by the actual delivery of the hereditary property to the heirs entitled thereto. Jurisdiction over the estate continues for purposes of ensuring the implementation and execution of its own orders, including the approved partition. The Court cited Section 1, Rule 90 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides for the duty of the executor or administrator to deliver the estate to those entitled upon the settlement of the estate.
The defense of laches was unavailing. Juanita’s motion for delivery was filed within three years from the approval of the amended project of partition, which was well within the five-year period for executing a judgment by motion under the rules. The prior suspension of her delivery petition, based on the pending civil case, became moot when Juanita filed an amended complaint in that civil case recognizing the validity of the partition insofar as the allocation of the two lots to her was concerned. Consequently, the probate court had the authority and duty to order Alejandro, as the former executor still in possession, to deliver the lots and their fruits to Juanita. The orders of the lower court denying the delivery were set aside.