This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-01-22 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The court in Civil Case No. 140-0-93 is not a partition court but one litigating an ordinary civil case, and all evidence of alleged acts of ownership by one co-owner should have been presented in the partition case, there to be threshed out in order that the partition court may arrive at a just division of the property owned in common; it is not for the trial court in the specific performance case to properly appreciate. Being a court trying an ordinary civil suit, the court in Civil Case No. 140-0-93 had no jurisdiction to act as a partition court. Trial courts trying an ordinary action cannot resolve to perform acts pertaining to a special proceeding because it is subject to specific prescribed rules.[15] | |||||
|
2007-12-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| On the other hand, petitioners are correct in alleging that the issue regarding the impairment of legitime of Fortunato Doronio must be resolved in an action for the settlement of estates of spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante. It may not be passed upon in an action for reconveyance and damages. A probate court, in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction, is the best forum to ventilate and adjudge the issue of impairment of legitime as well as other related matters involving the settlement of estate.[40] | |||||
|
2007-12-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| We likewise find merit in petitioners' contention that before any conclusion about the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, it is necessary that certain steps be taken first.[43] The net estate of the decedent must be ascertained, by deducting all payable obligations and charges from the value of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his death; then, all donations subject to collation would be added to it. With the partible estate thus determined, the legitime of the compulsory heir or heirs can be established; and only then can it be ascertained whether or not a donation had prejudiced the legitimes.[44] | |||||
|
2006-11-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court finds it unnecessary, at this point, to determine the successional rights, if any, of Frisco Gudani to the properties left by Dominga Goyma. Such matter is better threshed out in the proper special proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate of Dominga Goyma. As held by this Court, matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.[25] | |||||
|
2003-10-24 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Neither are we unmindful of the rule that questions on an advance made or allegedly made by the deceased to any heir may be heard and determined by the court that has jurisdiction over the estate proceedings; and that the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on the heirs.[26] | |||||