FACTS:
Rufina Luy Lim, surviving spouse of Pastor Y. Lim, filed a petition for intestate estate settlement. She sought to include in the inventory five corporations (Auto Truck TBA Corp., Speed Distributing, Inc., Active Distributors, Alliance Marketing Corp., Action Company, Inc.) and their properties registered under the Torrens system, claiming Pastor owned all capital, assets, and equity, and that stockholders/officers were mere dummies. The probate court initially excluded the properties, then reversed itself and ordered their inclusion. Private respondent corporations filed certiorari with the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether a probate court may include in the estate inventory: (1) corporations themselves, and (2) properties registered under the Torrens system in the corporations' names.
RULING:
Petition DENIED. CA Decision AFFIRMED. The probate court overstepped its jurisdiction. While probate courts may provisionally determine title for inventory purposes, such authority must be exercised judiciously. Here, properties were registered under the Torrens system in the corporations' names—entitled to presumptive conclusiveness. Without strong compelling evidence, registered title holders should be considered owners until title is nullified in an appropriate ordinary action. Petitioner failed to present such evidence. The corporations, having separate juridical personalities, cannot be included in the estate inventory absent clear and convincing proof to pierce the corporate veil. Affidavits alleging dummy incorporators were inadmissible hearsay—affiants were not presented for cross-examination.
DOCTRINE:
Probate courts have limited jurisdiction; title determination is provisional only
Torrens titles cannot be collaterally attacked in probate proceedings
Presumptive conclusiveness of Torrens title must be given due weight absent strong compelling evidence
Corporations have separate juridical personality; piercing the corporate veil requires clear and convincing evidence of control, fraud, and proximate injury
Affidavits are hearsay and inadmissible unless affiants testify and are cross-examined