G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012
LEO C. ROMERO AND DAVID AMANDO C. ROMERO VS. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA C. ROMERO AND VITTORIO C. ROMERO
FACTS:
Petitioners allege that upon their father’s death,
their mother, respondent Aurora Romero, was appointed as legal guardian who
held several real and personal properties in trust for her children. Since that
year until the present, she continues to be the administrator of the
properties, businesses, and investments comprising the estate of her late
husband. Sometime in 2006, petitioners Leo and Amando discovered that several
Deeds of Sale were registered over parcels of land that are purportedly
conjugal properties of their parents. Petitioners claim that their brother
Vittorio – through fraud, misrepresentation and duress – succeeded in
registering properties in his name. Petitioners filed a Complaint for Annulment
of Sale, Nullification of Title, and Conveyance of Title. This was denied by
the trial court on the ground that it could not be adjudicated without first
getting a definitive pronouncement from the intestate court as to the share of
each of the heirs
ISSUE:
Whether the dismissal was correct.
RULING:
Yes. In any case, there is no merit to petitioners’
claim that the issues raised in the case at bar pertain to title and ownership
and therefore need to be ventilated in a separate civil action. The issue
before the court is not really one of title or ownership, but the determination
of which particular properties should be included in the inventory of the estate.
Not only do petitioners assert their legal interest as compulsory heirs, they
also seek to be the owners, pro indiviso, of the said properties. To
anchor their claim, they argue that the properties are conjugal in nature and
hence form part of their inheritance. In Bernardo v. Court of Appeals,
the Supreme Court declared that the determination of whether a property is
conjugal or paraphernal for purposes of inclusion in the inventory of the
estate rests with the probate court.
Comments
Post a Comment