Ongsingco vs. Tan

Tasiana Ongsingco vs. Hon. Bienvenido Tan and Jose de Borja

July 25, 1955| Bautista Angelo

Facts:

Petitioner Tasiana Ongsingco is the wife and judicial guardian of Francisco de Borja, who was declared incompetent by the CFI of Rizal in Spec. Pro. No. 1764. Francisco de Borja is the surviving spouse of Josefa Tangco whose estate is being settled in Spec. Pro. No. 7866 in the same court. Respondent Jose de Borja is the son of Francisco de Borja and administrator of the estate of Josefa Tangco.

After Francisco was declared incompetent, Tasiana took possession of two parcels of land situated in Santa Rosa, Nueva Ejica and commenced the threshing of the palay crop standing thereon. Jose filed a motion in the estate proceedings of Josefa praying that Tasiana be restrained from threshing the palays until the ownership of the lands has been resolved by the court or by agreement of the parties.

Tasiana opposed the motion and stated that the question of ownership can only be threshed out elsewhere and not by the probate court. She then filed an action in the CFI of Nueva Ecija to prevent Jose from interfering with the harvest. The CFI of Nueve Ecija granted the preliminary injunction prayed for by Tasiana.

Meanwhile, the CFI of Rizal issued an order restraining Tasiana in the threshing of the palay harvested in the disputed lands. Tasian filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. She then filed a petition for certiorari with prohibition in the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the CFI of Rizal has jurisdiction to resolve the ownership dispute between Tasiana Ongsingco and Jose de Borja?

Held: No. In Franco vs. O’Brien, it was held that “the question of ownership is one which should be determined in an ordinary action and not in probate proceedings, and this whether or not the property is alleged to belong to the estate”. In another case it was held that “the general rule is that questions as to title to property cannot be passed upon in testate or intestate proceedings”[1] or stating the rule more elaborately, “When questions arise as to the ownership of property alleged to be a part of the estate of a deceased person but claimed by some other person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased, but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such questions cannot be determined in the courts of administrative proceedings”.[2]

Based from the foregoing, it thus appears obvious that the CFI of Rizal exceeded its jurisdiction in acting upon the question of ownership in its capacity as probate court. Such question has been squarely raised in an action pending in the CFI of Nueva Ecija. It is of no consequence that what respondent court merely did was look into the identity of said properties. This question is necessarily imbibed in the greater issue of ownership and being interwoven one can hardly draw the line of demarcation that would separate one from the other.

Doctrine: A probate court cannot act on questions of ownership lest it exceeds its jurisdiction.

---

[1] Pascual vs. Pascual, 73 Phil. 561
[2] Guzman vs. Anog, 37 Phil. 61