ArticuLaw Primo

Celedonia Solivio vs. Court of Appeals
GR NO. 83484 February 12, 1990

 

 

Facts:

 

   Esteban Javellana, Jr. died a bachelor, with his only surviving relatives  who are the following:

 

Celedonia Solivio – Maternal aunt

Concordia Javellana-Villanueva – sister of his father

 

   Concordia and Celedonia agreed that the latter would take care of the proceedings leading to the formation of the foundation.

 

  Celedonia filed a special proceeding for her appointment as special administratrix of the estate of the deceased.

 

   Later, she filed an amended petition praying that the letters of administration be issued to her; that she be declared the sole heir of the deceased; and that after payment of all claims and rendition of inventory and accounting, the estate be adjudicated to her.

 

   After due publication and hearing of the said petition as well as her amended petition, she was declared sole heir of the estate of the deceased.

 

   Thereafter, she sold the properties of the estate to pay the taxes and other obligations of the deceased and proceeded to set up the “SALUSTIA SOLIVIO VDA. DE JAVELLANA FOUNDATION”

 

    Four months later, Concordia Javellana Villanueva filed a motion for reconsideration declaring Celedonia as “sole heir” of Esteban because she too was an heir of the deceased.

 

    Motion for Reconsideration  was denied on the ground of tardiness

 

  Instead of appealing the denial, Concordia filed a civil case in the RTC Iloilo for partition, recovery of possession, ownership and damages.

 

 

Issue:

 

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo had jurisdiction to entertain the case for partition and recovery of Concordia Villanueva’s share of the estate of Esteban Jr. even while the probate proceedings were still pending in the same court.

 

 

Held:

 

   The RTC lacked jurisdiction to entertain Concordia’s action for partition and recovery of her share of the estate while the probate  proceedings are still pending in the same court, there being as yet no orders for the submission and approval of the administratrix’s inventory and accounting distributing the residue of the estate to the heir and terminating the proceedings.

 

   It is the order of distribution directing the delivery of the residue of the estate to the persons entitled thereto that brings to a close the intestate proceedings, puts an end to the administration and thus relieves the administrator from his duties.

 

The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same.

 

The finality of the approval of the project of the probate court has the power to determine the proportion or parts to which each distributed is entitled.

 

To hold that a separate and independent action is necessary to that effect, would be contrary to the general tendency of the jurisprudence of avoiding multiplicity of suits; and is further, expensive, dilatory, and impractical.