467 Phil. 974
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
IKALIMA. — Aking inihahayag at ginagawa na tagapagmana, sa aking kusang loob, ang pinalaki kong APO na si ANSELMO P. MANGULABNAN, may sapat na gulang, kasal kay Flora Umagap, at naninirahan sa San Lorenzo, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, at anak ng aking anak na si SIMPLICIA, at sa aking APO na si ANSELMO ay aking ipinagkakaloob at ipinamamana, sa aking pagkamatay, ang mga sumusunod kong pagaari:
The testatrix’s son Bernardo Patulandong (Patulandong), respondent herein, was in the will appointed as the executor.
LOT NO. TITLE NO. KINALALAGYAN NABANGGIT SA288-A NT-47089 Sta. Cruz (1) p. 2 3348-A 100629 Poblacion (2) p. 2 3349-B 100630 Poblacion (3) p. 2
xxx[1] (Underscoring in the original; emphasis supplied)
UNA. — Ang Lote No. 288-A na nakalagay sa barrio ng Sta. Cruz, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, magsukat 36,384 metro cuadrados, at nagtataglay ng TCT No. NT-47089, na aking ipinamana sa aking apong si ANSELMO P. MANGULABNAN, sangayon sa Pangkat IKA-LIMA, pp. 5-6, ng aking HULING HABILIN (Testamento), ay ipinasiya kong ipagkaloob at ipamana sa aking mga anak na sina BERNARDO, SIMPLICIA, GUILLERMA at JUAN nagaapellidong PATULANDONG, at sa aking apong si ANSELMO P. MANGULABNAN, sa magkakaparehong bahagi na tig-ikalimang bahagi bawat isa sa kanila.On May 14, 1988, the testatrix died.
IKALAWA. — Na maliban sa pagbabagong ito, ang lahat ng mga tadhana ng aking HULING HABILIN ay aking pinagtitibay na muli.
x x x[3] (Underscoring in the original; emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the court orders the partitioning of the properties and the defendant to deliver the copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-47089.On July 17, 1989 Patulandong filed before the Regional Trial Court of Nueva Ecija a petition[5] for probate of the codicil of the testatrix, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 218.
However, in view of the case cited by the plaintiff himself, the court holds that the partition is without prejudice [to]... the probate of the codicil in accordance with the Rules of Court, [P]alacios vs. Catimbang Palacios cited by the plaintiff:
“After a will has been probated during the lifetime of the testator, it does not necessarily mean that he cannot alter or revoke the same before his death. Should he make a new will, it would also be allowable of his petition and if he should die before he had a chance to present such petition, the ordinary probate proceedings after the testator’s death would be in order.”
The Court also orders that the right of the tenants of the agricultural land in question should be protected meaning to say that the tenants should not be ejected. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in the following manner:The Camayas who had been allowed to intervene in Sp. Proc. No. 218, and Mangulabnan, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above-said decision but it was denied by Order[12] of February 28,1996.1. Declaring Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-215750 issued by the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija in the name of Anselmo Mangulabnan dated February 7, 1991 and the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by him in favor of the intervenors Carolina, Ferdinand and Edgardo, all surnamed Camaya on February 19, 1991 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-216446 under date March 18, 1991 issued in the names of the above-named intervenors as NULL and VOID and of no force and effect; and,
2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija to cancel Transfer of Certificate of Title Nos. NT-215750 and NT-216446 and reissue the corresponding Certificate of Titles to Bernardo R. Patulandong, Filipino, married to Gorgonia Mariano residing at San Vicente, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Juan R. Patulandong, Filipino, widower and residing at San Lorenzo, Gapan, Nueva Ecija; Guillerma R. Patulandong Linsangan of legal age, Filipino, widow and residing at San Vicente, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Simplicia R. Patulandong Mangulabnan, of legal age, widow, and residing at San Lorenzo, Gapan, Nueva Ecija and her grandson, Anselmo Mangulabnan with full personal circumstances stated herein to the extent of one fifth (1/5) each pursuant to the approved codicil (will) of Rufina Reyes dated June 27, 1973.[11]
1. THERE WERE SERIOUS SUBSTANTIAL DEPARTURES FROM THE FORMALITIES REQUIRED BY THE RULES, THE LAW, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SETTING AS A PROBATE COURT.
2. THE OPPOSITOR DID NOT ONLY ACQUIRE LOT NO. 288-A BY WILL BUT HE ALSO ACQUIRED THE SAME BY PARTITION IN A CIVIL CASE WHERE THE DECISION HAS ALREADY REACHED ITS FINALITY AND THEREFORE CAN NO LONGER BE NEGATED BY A QUESTIONABLE CODICIL.
3. THAT THE SUBJECT LOT 288-A IS NO LONGER WITHIN THE REACHED (sic) OF THE PETITIONER CONSIDERING THAT THE OPPOSITOR VENDOR HAD A CLEAN TITLE AND THAT THE INTERVENORS-VENDEED HAD ACQUIRED THE SAME BY WAY OF SALE AS INNOCENT PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE.[13]
In Cuizon v. Ramolete, [17] this Court elucidated on the limited jurisdiction of a probate court, to wit:1. Whether or not the instrument which is offered for probate is the last will and testament of the decedent; in other words, the question is one of identity[;]
2. Whether or not the will has been executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law; in other words, the question is one of due execution[; and]
3. Whether the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will; in other words, the question is one of capacity.[16]
It is well-settled rule that a probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties. All that said court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator. If there is no dispute, well and good; but if there is, then the parties, the administrator, and the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title because the probate court cannot do so.Following Cuizon, the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it further declared the deed of sale and the titles of petitioners null and void, it having had the effect of depriving them possession and ownership of the property.x x x
Having been apprised of the fact that the property in question was in the possession of third parties and more important, covered by a transfer certificate of title issued in the name of such third parties, the respondent court should have denied the motion of the respondent administrator and excluded the property in question from the inventory of the property of the estate. It had no authority to deprive such third persons of their possession and ownership of the property. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
SECTION 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. — A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law,petitioners’ titles cannot, under probate proceedings, be declared null and void.