1. Andrea Manalac, Etc. vs.

Buenaventura Ocampo, Ana and Laureno Manalac

FACTS:
Petitioner Andrea Cordova Manalac is the heir of her deceased husband, Laureno
Manalac, and the administratix of his estate. On September 1940 petitioner filed a
petition in the probate court praying that the properties, "La Joyeria El Diamante" and
"La Agencia El Diamante.", be included in the inventory of his estate. Respondents Ana
Manalac and Laureano Manalac Jr., heirs of the deceased opposed the petition. The
probate court ruled that such properties do not pertain to the conjugal partnership
of the deceased and the petitioner. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration
which the court denied the motion stating the declaration of the probate court may
itself be part of the dispositive portion of the resolution. Petitioners moved for
reconsideration of the probate for excess of jurisdiction for its decision in the
ownership of the said properties. Respondent court deined the motion stating
petitioners first motion for reconsideration did not partake the nature of a motion
for new trial, thus did not suspend the running of the period for the perfection of the
appeal and such courts decision has become final. Petitioner then files petition for
certiorari for excess of jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the probabte court had jurisdiction to declare ownership of
the properties

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held the resolution of the probabte court is valid and
has jurisdiction to render the same.

RATIO: As a general rule, a question as to title to property cannot be passed upon

in testate or intestate proceedings. An exception is when one of the parties prays
merely for the inclusion in or exclusion from the inventory of the property, in which
case the probabte court may pass provisionally upon the question without prejudice
to its final determination in a separate action. However, when the interested parties
are all heris, as in the case, it is optional to them to submit to the probabte court a
question as to the title of the property which the court can pass judgment on
because they are question of collation or of advancement inevitably involved in the
said courts jurisdiction. But in the instant case, where all the interested parties are
heirs of the deceased, the widow already submitted the question of ownership by
motion therefore cannot complain if the court adjudges the question against her.
There was no declaration as to the disputed properties in the dispositive part of the
probate courts resolution ordering such to be included in the inventory. Thus, there
is an express statement to the effect that such disputed properties did not belong to
the conjugal partnership of the deceased and the petitioner, such is considered as
sufficient disposition of the question regarding said properties. Only after such order
could the judgment regarding the disputed properties be appealed, but 14 days
already elapsed, thus the Supreme Courts ruling of the validity of the probabte
courts resolution, but not as to its finality as the petitioner can still appeal 16 days
after the finality of the judgment.