Bernardo Vs Ca

Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 7 SCRA 367 , No. L-18148 February 28, 1963 FACTS: Eusebio Capili died before his wife Hermogena Reyes. Eusebio’s will was admitted to probate wherein he left his properties to his wife and cousins. Hermogena Reyes then during the pendency of the probate proceedings died intestate, thus she was substituted by her collateral relatives as petitioned by Bernardo, the executor of Eusebio’s estate. Bernardo then filed a project of partition in accordance with the will of Eusebio which however was opposed by Hermogena’s relatives. They submitted their own project of partition claiming that ½ of the properties mentioned in the will of Eusebio should be awarded to them as those properties did not belong to Eusebio but to the conjugal partnership of the spouses. This was questioned by Bernardo. He claimed that the properties belonged exclusively to Eusebio and not to the conjugal partnership because Hermogena donated to Eusebio her share of such partnership. The probate court issued an order declaring the donation as void as it is prohibited by law and disapproved both projects of partition. The court ordered the executor to file another project partition dividing the property of Eusebio according to his will, however noting that such properties were conjugal properties of the deceased spouses. ISSUE: Whether or not the probate court had jurisdiction to determine that the properties belonged to the conjugal partnership? HELD: YES . The Court consistently held that as a general rule, question as to title of property cannot be passed upon on testate or intestate proceedings, except when one of the parties prays merely for the inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of the property, in which case the probate court may pass provisionally upon the question without prejudice to its final determination in a separate action. It has also been held that when the parties interested are all heirs of the deceased, it is optional to them to submit to the probate court a question as to title to property, and when so submitted said probate court may definitely pass judgment thereon. Provided that interests of third persons are not prejudiced. The jurisdiction to try controversies between heirs of a deceased person regarding the ownership of properties alleged to belong to his estate, has been recognized to be vested in probate courts. This is so because the purpose of an administration proceeding is the liquidation of the estate and distribution of the residue among the heirs and legatees. Liquidation means determination of all the assets of the estate and payment of all the debts and expenses. Thereafter, distribution is made of the decedent's liquidated estate among the persons entitled to succeed him. The proceeding is in the nature of an action of partition, in which each party is required to bring into the mass whatever community property he has in his possession.