INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED GELACIO SEBIAL. BENJAMINA SEBIAL vs.

ROBERTA SEBIAL, JULIANO SEBIAL and HEIRS OF BALBINA SEBIAL

Gelacio Sebial died intestate. By his 1ST WIFE Leoncia Manikis, begot 3 children named Roberta, Balbina
and Juliano (respondents). By his 2ND WIFE, Dolores Enad, whom he allegedly married, he begot 6 children
named Benjamina (petitioner), Valentina, Ciriaco, Gregoria, Esperanza and Luciano.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE. Benjamina filed a Petition for the Settlement of the Estate and prayed
for her appointment as administratrix. Roberta opposed the petition on the ground that the estate had
already been partitioned and that she a resident of the place where the decedent's estate was located
should be appointed administratrix and not Benjamina, who is working 70 kms away from the location of
estate.
 CFI Appointed Benjamina as administratrix and found that the alleged partition was invalid and
ineffective.
 The oppositors filed for an MR and insisted that the estate had been partitioned, and that the
action to rescind the partition had already prescribed. The same was denied.
 The oppositors filed a Motion to Terminate the administration proceeding on the grounds that
the estate was valued at less than P6,000 and that it had already been partitioned and, therefore,
there was no necessity for the administration proceeding.

Benjamina filed an inventory and appraisal of the estate consisting of 7 unregistered parcels of land. The
oppositors filed an opposition to the inventory. The probate court suspended the proceedings in view of
the possibility of an amicable settlement. It ordered the parties to prepare an inventory of the properties
belonging to the decedent, with a segregation of the properties belonging to each marriage.
ADMINISTRATRIX
RESPONDENTS ROBERTA et. al.
BENJAMINA
Submitted the inventory consisting of 2 parcels of land. The conjugal estate of Gelacio and Dolores a. 7 unregistered
consisted of only one parcel of land, purchased with money coming from the conjugal assets of Gelacio parcels of land
and Leoncia. The said land was sold by the children of the second marriage to Eduardo Cortado. b. 2 houses and the
The 2 parcels of land were partitioned among the 3 children in the first marriage (3/4) and Valentina as the fruits of the
representative of the children in the 2nd marriage (1/4). properties

The probate court approved the inventory submitted by the administratix because there was prima facie
evidence to show that the properties listed belonged to the estate. It directed the delivery of the same to
the administratrix. COURT OF APPEALS. Roberta moved for the reconsideration of the probate court’s
orders. CA certified the case to SC because the appeal involves only the legal issues.

ISSUE: Whether the probate court has jurisdiction to approve the inventory filed by the administratrix 3
months after her appointment.

YES. The three-month period prescribed in sec 1, Rule 83 of the Rules is not mandatory. After the filing
of a petition for the issuance of letters of administration and the publication of the notice of hearing, the
proper court acquires jurisdiction over a decedent's estate and retains that jurisdiction until the
proceeding is closed. The fact that an inventory was filed after the 3-month period would not deprive the
probate court of jurisdiction to approve it. However, an administrator's unexplained delay in filing the
inventory may be a ground for his removal (Sec. 2, Rule 82).

ISSUE: Whether the settlement of the estate should be done summarily.

NO. Indeed, the probate court failed to ascertain by preponderance of evidence the actual value of the
estate, if there was still an estate to be administered. The approval of the amended inventory was not
such a determination. Said approval is not a conclusive determination of what assets constituted the
estate and of the valuations thereof. Such determination is only provisional and is without prejudice
to a judgment in a separate action on the issue of title or ownership. The approved inventory should
not be considered as a final adjudication on the ownership of the properties listed therein.

ISSUE: Whether the order to deliver the properties to the administratrix was proper.

NO. The order is erroneous and should be set aside because the probate court failed to receive
evidence as to the ownership of the said parcels of land. The GENERAL RULE is that questions of title
to property cannot be passed upon in a testate or intestate proceeding. However, when the parties are all
heirs of the decedent, it is optional upon them to submit to the probate court the question of title to
property and, when so submitted, the probate court may definitely pass judgment thereon.

Rematado and Recuelo (owners of the land) are not heirs of the decedent. They are third persons. The
rule is that matters affecting property under administration may be taken cognizance of by the probate
court in the course of the intestate proceedings provided that the interests of third persons are not
prejudiced.
 If FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCS: 3rd persons may be examined under oath as to how they came
into the possession of the decedent's assets but a separate action would be necessary to recover
the said assets.

This case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with the following
guidelines:

 The probate court should receive evidence on the contentions of the parties as to (a) the assets of
the estate, (b) its valuations, (c) the rights of the transferees of some of the assets, and (d) the issue
of prescription.

Generally, prescription does not run in favor of a coheir as long as he expressly or impliedly
recognizes the coownership. But from the moment that a coheir claims absolute and exclusive
ownership of the hereditary properties and denies the others any share therein, the question
involved is no longer one of partition but that of ownership.

 In addition to that evidence, the probate court should require the parties to present further proofs
on the ownership of the properties enumerated in the (a) inventory, (b) alleged partition and (3)
allegations in oppositors' inventory.

 After receiving evidence, the probate court should decide whether there are still any assets of the
estate that can be partitioned.
a. If there are ASSETS = Effect the partition and distribution.
b. If NO MORE ASSETS or PARTITION ALREADY MADE or the ACTION TO RECOVER
THE LANDS TRANSFERRED TO 3RD PERSON HAD PRESCRIBED = the intestate
proceeding shall be dismissed.