G.R. No. L-18148. February 28, 1963.
DEOGRACIAS BERNARDO, executor of the testate estate of the deceased EUSEBIO CAPILI; and the instituted heirs, namely: ARMANDO CAPILI and ARTURO BERNARDO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE HEIRS OF THE LATE HERMOGENA REYES, namely: FRANCISCO REYES, ET AL., and JOSE ISIDORO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Eusebio Capili died testate. His will, disposing of various properties, was admitted to probate. His instituted heirs included his widow, Hermogena Reyes, and several cousins. Upon Hermogena’s subsequent death, her collateral relatives were substituted in the proceeding. The executor, Deogracias Bernardo, filed a project of partition adjudicating the estate solely among Eusebio’s testamentary heirs, allocating Hermogena’s share to her own relatives. The basis was a deed of donation wherein Hermogena had purportedly donated her share in the conjugal properties to Eusebio.
The heirs of Hermogena Reyes opposed this project, submitting a counter-project. They claimed a one-half share of the properties, arguing these were conjugal assets and that the donation was invalid. They contended that if the donation was inter vivos, it was void under Article 133 of the Civil Code prohibiting donations between spouses. If mortis causa, it was void for non-compliance with the formalities of a will. The probate court heard evidence and received memoranda on these issues.

ISSUE

Did the probate court have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the deed of donation and adjudicate the question of ownership over the disputed properties?

RULING

Yes, the probate court had jurisdiction. The general rule is that a probate court, being a court of limited jurisdiction, cannot ordinarily adjudicate questions of title. However, established jurisprudence recognizes exceptions. When all interested parties are heirs of the deceased and they voluntarily submit the question of title to the probate court for resolution, the court may definitively rule on the matter. Furthermore, with the parties’ consent, the court can take cognizance of property issues within the proceeding, provided no third-party interests are prejudiced.
In this case, the petitioners themselves, by filing their project of partition premised on the validity of the donation, placed the issue of ownership squarely before the court. The respondents, by filing their opposition and counter-project, likewise submitted to the court’s resolution of the same issue. All parties are heirs or substitutes thereof. Consequently, the petitioners cannot, after invoking the court’s power to approve their partition based on their claim of ownership, object to the court’s jurisdiction when the opposing heirs challenge that claim. They are deemed to have waived any jurisdictional objection. The probate court was therefore correct in proceeding to rule on the donation’s validity, declaring it void, and ordering a new partition recognizing the properties as conjugal, to be divided between Eusebio’s instituted heirs and Hermogena’s legal heirs. The defense of estoppel against Hermogena’s heirs fails, as her prior acts were based on a mistaken belief in the donation’s validity. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.