G.R. No. L-43155 August 14, 1987
LUISA Y. ORTEGA, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE NUMERIANO ESTENZO, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Joaquin Ortega died intestate in 1948. In subsequent probate proceedings (Sp. Proc. No. 441-R), the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in a 1962 order, declared Emilia Ybañez as the surviving spouse and, together with her daughters, as the legal heirs entitled to the estate. This order became final. In 1972, Calixta Yap and her children (private respondents) filed a separate civil case for quieting of title, claiming Calixta was the absolute owner of a specific parcel of land and that a 1927 deed conveying it to Joaquin Ortega was simulated. They later amended their complaint to allege that Calixta was the legal wife of Joaquin and their children were the legitimate heirs, seeking a declaration of heirship and ownership over the estate properties.
The trial judge, respondent Numeriano Estenzo, allowed the amendments over petitioners’ objections, effectively converting the action from one for quieting of title into a collateral attack on the final probate order declaring the heirs. Petitioners assailed this as an act in excess of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals dismissed their petition, prompting this recourse.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction by allowing amendments that converted a quieting of title action into a proceeding to declare the legal wife and legitimate heirs of Joaquin Ortega, thereby collaterally attacking a final probate order.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction. The probate court’s 1962 order declaring Emilia Ybañez and her children as the legal heirs of Joaquin Ortega had long become final and executory. A separate ordinary action cannot be used to collaterally attack and nullify that final declaration of heirship. The ruling on heirship is binding and the matter is res judicata.
However, the Court clarified that the issue of ownership of the specific parcel of land alleged to be owned by Calixta Yap in her own right is a separate matter. A probate court has limited jurisdiction; it cannot with finality adjudicate title to properties claimed by outside parties. The proper remedy for resolving conflicting claims of ownership is an ordinary civil action. Therefore, while the trial court cannot revisit the declaration of heirs, it can properly determine the issue of ownership of the 174,496-square-meter land originally subject of the complaint. The case was remanded to the trial court for a full hearing solely on that specific question of ownership.