01. Sebial vs. Sebial.pdf - SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 11 pages.

9/11/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064 1/11 VOL. 64, JUNE 27, 1975 385 Sebial vs . Sebial No.L-23419. June 27, 1975. * INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED GELACIO SEBIAL. BENJAMINA SEBIAL, petitioner-appellee, vs . ROBERTA SEBIAL, JULIANO SEBIAL and HEIRS OF BALBINA SEBIAL, oppositors-appellants. Special proceedings ; Intestate succession ; Probate court retains jurisdiction to approve inventory of assets of decedent even if presented after 3-month period prescribed in Section 1, Rule 83 of the Rules of Court .—The three-month period prescribed in section 1, Rule 83 (formerly Rule 84) of the Rules of Court 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 an 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. Rule 82, Rules of Court). Same ; To determine if summary settlement is called for, probate court should ascertain value of estate left by deceased by preponderance of evidence .—While the verified petition for the issuance of letters of administration, it was alleged that the gross value of the decedent’s estate was “not more than five thousand pesos”, in the amended inventory the valuation was P17,000. Indeed, one of the lower court’s omissions was its failure to ascertain by preponderance of evidence the actual value of the estate, if there was still an estate to be administered. The approval of the amended inventory was not such a determination. Anyway, in the present posture of the proceeding, no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the petition herein and ordering that a new petition for summary settlement be filed. _______________
Image of page 1
9/11/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064 2/11 * SECOND DIVISION. 386 386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Sebial vs . Sebial Same ; Same ; Intestate court’s approval of inventory of assets of deceased is not conclusive of what assets really belonged to the estate and is without prejudice to a judgment in an action on the title thereto .—The lower court’s order approving the amended inventory is not a conclusive determination of what assets constitutes the decedent’s estate and of the valuations thereof. Such a determination is only provisional in character and is without prejudice to a judgment in a separate action on the issue of title or ownership.
Image of page 2

Want to read all 11 pages?

Image of page 3

Want to read all 11 pages?

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 11 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Law School

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern