PACIENCIA DE JESUS, ET AL VS. IÑIGO S.
DAZA, ET AL In addition, if, even the action for compulsory
Facts: Petitioners are some of the testamentary heirs of
the late Gavino de Jesus whose estate is the subject
matter of the special proceeding No. 3174. Respondent
Justina S. Vda de Manglapus purchased from Sixto de
Jesus and Natalia Alfonga, co-heirs of the petitioners, the
rights, interest and participation of the said Sixto &
Natalia, in the said testate estate, 2 parcels of land
assigned to them as their shares in the project of
partition which was already submitted to the probate
court for approval. On Sept. 4, 1945, when the project of
partition was approved, respondent filed a petition for
approval by the probate court the sale to her of the
rights, interests and participation of Sixto & Natalia of the
said 2 parcels of land which the probate court approved.
After learning of the aforesaid sale, petitioners instituted
an action in the CFI of Batangas against respondent for
legal redemption under Art. 1067 of the Civil Code. While
the case for legal redemption is still pending, respondent
petitioned the probate court to order the provincial
sheriff of the province of Batangas to take immediate
possession of the parcels of land in question and to
deliver them to her afterwards through her authorized
representative Gregorio Leynes. The said court approved
the respondent’s petition. Hence, the present issue.
ISSUE: WON the respondent judge, presiding the
probate court, had jurisdiction to order the delivery of
the possession of the aforesaid parcels of land to
respondent Manglapus, represented by her authorized
representative, within the same estate proceeding and
not in an independent ordinary action.
HELD: Yes. The SC concurred with the probate court’s
decision and provided several reasons supporting its
conclusion, to wit:
1. The very interposition of the action for legal
redemption necessarily implies admission of the
validity of the sale;
2. Article 1067 of the Civil Code, rather than
justifying the withholding of the possession from
the purchaser, clearly sanctions his taking
possession of what he has purchased, as his
rights are absolute until and unless resolved by
the timely and valid exercise of the right of
redemption;
3. The sale to respondent of the 2 parcels of land in
question by Sixto & Natalia took place after the
project of partition had been approved by the
court, on account of which Art. 1067 of the Civil
Code cannot support petitioner’s claim, said
article referring to a sale by any of the heirs of
his hereditary right to a stranger before
partition. But even supposing that the approval
of the project of partition by the court was made
after the sale to respondent of the parcels of
land, still that approval related back to the date
of the project of partition.
recognition of a natural child may be instituted and
decided w/n the proceeding for the settlement of the
estate of the deceased, it would be absurd were We to
declare now that for the mere object of ordering the
delivery of possession of a portion of the inheritance
which has already been assigned to a certain person w/n
the estate proceeding, the probate court lacks
jurisdiction to make the order w/n the same proceeding,
but should require the institution of an independent
ordinary action.
MARCELA DE BORJA VDA DE TORRES, ET AL VS HON.
DEMETRIO B. ENCARNATION & CRISANTO DE BORJA
Facts: In the intestate estate of Marcelo de Borja, the
commissioners appointed by the court submitted on Feb.
8, 1944, a project of partition, in w/c the land in question,
which is and was then in the possession of the herein
petitioners, was included as property of the estate and
assigned to one Miguel B. Dayco, one of Marcelo de
Borja’s heirs. Over the objection of the petitioners,
surviving children of Quintin de Borja who was one of
Marcelo’s children, the proposed partition was approved
in February, 1946, and the order of approval on appeal
was affirmed by the SC in 1949. Said petitioners contest
the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge to issue the
order, herein sought to be reviewed, directing them to
deliver to the administrator to the intestate of Marcelo
de Borja, the question parcel of land in their possession
and to which they assert exclusive ownership. They
contend that the administrator’s remedy to recover the
property in controversy is an action at law and not by
motion in the intestate proceeding.
ISSUE: WON the probate court has jurisdiction to order
petitioner-heirs to deliver the property in possession
subject of the intestate proceeding to the administrator.
HELD: Yes. Applying the ruling in the case of De Jesus vs
Daza, the facts of w/c were in all essential particulars
analogous to those of the present case, the Court said:
“…the probate court, having the custody and control of
the entire estate, is the most logical authority to
effectuate this provision (Sec. 1, Rule 91 of the Rules of
Court) w/n the same estate proceeding, said proceeding
being the most convenient one in w/c this power and
function of the court can be exercised and performed
w/o the necessity if requiring the parties to undergo the
inconvenience, delay and expense of having to
commence and litigate an entirely different action. There
can be no question of the share to be delivered the
probate court would have jurisdiction w/n the same
estate proceeding to order him to deliver that possession
to the person entitled thereto, and we see no reason,
legal or equitable, for denying the same power to the
probate court to be exercised w/n the same estate
proceeding if the share to be delivered happens to be in
the possession of ‘any other person,’ especially when
‘such other person’ is one of the heirs themselves who
are already under the jurisdiction of the probate court in
the same estate proceeding.

ANDRES E. VALERA, alias ANDREW E. VALERA VS JOSE

VILLANUEVA, ETC., ET AL