Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

Gelacio Sebial died intestate in 1943 in Cebu. He had three (3) children with his first wife, who were the appellants in this case. He likewise had six (6) children with his second marriage, and one of those was the appellee in this case.

​

On June 17, 1960, Benjamina Sebial filed in the CFI of Cebu a verified petition for the settlement of Gelacio Sebial’s estate. She prayed that she be appointed administratrix thereof. Roberta Sebial opposed the petition on the ground that the estate of Gelacio had already been partitioned among his children.

​

After hearing, the lower Court in its Order of January 16, 1961 appointed Benjamina Sebial as administratrix. It found that the alleged partition of decedent’s estate was invalid and ineffective.

​

Letters of administration were issued to Benjamina Sebial. On the same date, a notice to creditors was issued.

​

The oppositors moved for reconsideration of the Order. The lower Court denied the motion. The oppositors filed a motion to terminate the administration proceeding.

​

Benjamina Sebial filed an inventory and appraisal of the decedent’s estate.

​

The oppositors registered their opposition to the inventory on the ground that the parcels of land enumerated in the inventory no longer formed part of decedent’s estate.

​

The lower Court inexplicably required the administratrix to submit another inventory. In compliance, Benjamina submitted an inventory wherein she reproduced her inventory and added two (2) other items. The oppositor interposed an opposition to the said inventory.

​

The lower Court approved the second inventory because there was allegedly a prima facie evidence to show that the seven (7) parcels of land and two (2) houses listed therein belonged to the decedent’s estate.

​

The lower Court denied the oppositor’s motion for revision of partition.

​

Roberta Sebial moved for reconsideration of the two (2) Orders on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to approve an inventory filed beyond the three (3) month period fixed in Sec. 1 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court has no jurisdiction to approve an inventory filed beyond the three (3) month period.

 

HELD:

The Court ruled that the oppositors’ contention that the probate court had no jurisdiction to approve the inventory because the administratrix filed it after three (3) months from the date of her appointment is not well-taken.

​

The three (3) month period prescribed in Sec. 1 of Rule 83 is not mandatory. After the filing of a petition for the issuance of letters of administration and the publication of the notice of hearing, the proper Court of First Instance acquires jurisdiction over a decedent’s estate and retains that jurisdiction until the proceeding is closed.

​

The fact that the inventory was filed after the three-month period would not deprive the probate court of jurisdiction to approve it. However, an administrator’s unexplained delay in filing the inventory may be a ground for his removal. (Sec. 2, of Rule 83)