Post on 07-Jul-2018
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
1/25
Special Proceedings Cases:
Settlement of Estate
Bernardo v. CA, GR No. L-!"!,
#e$r%ar& '!, ()*
Parties:
1. Deogracias Bernardo. He is the
executor of the Testate Estate of
the deceased Eusebio Capili;2. Armando Capili !rsula Capili
Buena"entura Capili
Hermogena #e$es Arturo
Bernardo Deogracias Bernardo
Eduardo Bernardo. The ones%ho stand to bene&t from the
%ill of Eusebio Capili.'. Hermogena #e$es. The %ido%
of the Eusebio Capili.(. Collateral relati"es and
intestate heirs of Hermogena
#e$es.
Facts:
Eusebio Capili and Hermogena #e$es%ere married. During their marriage
Hermogena donated her share to the
con)ugal partnership to Eusebio.
Hence %hen Eusebio died and a
testate proceeding for the settlement
of his estate %as &led before the C*+ of
Bulacan the properties including
those %hich %ere considered part of
the con)ugal partnership %ere to be
disposed to his testamentar$ heirs
including his %ife in accordance %ith
the terms contained in his %ill. His
%ife after the %ill %as admitted to
probate died and %as substituted
through the executor,s petition b$ her
collateral relati"es and intestate heirs.
-hen the Deogracias %ho %as the
executor of the estate of Eusebio
Capili submitted a pro)ect partition
the collateral relati"es and intestate
heirs of Hermogena opposed the same
and claimed that of the propertiesmentioned in Eusebio,s %ill belonged
to the con)ugal partnership of the
spouses. The$ submitted a counter/
pro)ect of partition of their o%n.
The probate court set the t%o pro)ects
of partition for hearing. +t %as the
argued b$ the executor and the
instituted heirs that the properties to
be disposed belonged exclusi"el$ to
Eusebio since Hermogena his %ife
donated her share to the con)ugal
partnership to him; that the heirs of
Hermogena #e$es had no la%ful
standing to 0uestion the "alidit$ of the
donation; and that should the$ ha"e
legal standing the 0uestion as regards
the donation cannot be litigated in the
testate proceeding but in a separate
ci"il action. +t %as the argument of
Hermogena,s heirs that the donation%as null and "oid thereb$ not maing
Eusebio as the o%ner of his %ife,s
share and therefore could not "alidl$
dispose of it in his %ill.
The probate court ruled that the
donation %as "oid %ithout maing
an$ speci&c &nding as to %hether the
donation %as inter "i"os or mortis
causa. According to the probate court
if the donation %as donation inter"i"os it %as "oid due to Article 1'' of
the Ci"il Code %hich prohibits
donations bet%een spouses during the
marriage. hould the donation be a
donation mortis causa it failed to
compl$ %ith the formalities of a %ill as
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
2/25
re0uired b$ la% Articles 324 and 456
of the Ci"il Code there being no
attestation clause.
As to the pro)ect of partition the
probate court disappro"ed both anddirected the executor to &le another
%hich di"ided the properties
mentioned in the %ill and the
properties mentioned in the deed of
donation on the basis that such
properties %ere con)ugal properties.
Deogracias and the instituted heirs
&led a motion for ne% trial and
reiterated his contention that the
probate court had no )urisdiction totae cogni7ance of the claim in"ol"ing
the title to the properties mentioned in
the %ill. This motion %as denied b$
the probate court.
Deogracias et al appealed to the CA
%hich a8rmed the probate court,s
decision. Hence Deogracias &led a
petition for re"ie% b$ certiorari before
the C.
+t %as their contention that the
probate court had limited and special
)urisdiction and hence had no po%er to
ad)udicate title.
Issue:
The issue %as %hether the probate
court could decide on 0uestion of
o%nership of certain properties
in"ol"ed i.e. %hether such propertiesbelonged to the con)ugal partnership
or the Eusebio exclusi"el$.
Ruling:
The Court has held that generall$
0uestion as to title to propert$ cannot
be passed upon in testate or intestate
proceedings. There are instances
ho%e"er %hen the probate court ma$
pass upon pro"isionall$ upon the
0uestion such as %here one of the
parties pra$s merel$ for the inclusionor exclusion from the in"entor$ of the
propert$; %here the parties are all
heirs of the deceased; or %here there
is consent of the parties pro"ided that
third parties are not pre)udiced.
The probate court has )urisdiction to
decide on such matter. +t is %ithin the
probate court to li0uidate the con)ugal
partnership in order to determine the
estate of the decedent %hich is to be
distributed among his heirs %ho are all
parties to the proceedings.
9oreo"er there are no third parties
%hose rights are a:ected. This is so
e"en though the heirs of the deceased
%ido% are not heirs of the testator
Eusebio. Ho%e"er as the$ %ere
substituted due to her death the$
could no longer be treated as third
parties. 9oreo"er %hat the$ asserted
%as the %ife,s right to the con)ugal
propert$. The claim that is being
asserted therefore is one belonging to
an heir to the testator and
conse0uentl$ it complied %ith the
re0uirement of the exception that the
parties interested are all heirs claiming
title under the testator.
+t %as lie%ise argued b$ petitionersthat the$ ne"er submitted themsel"es
to the )urisdiction f the court for the
purpose of determining 0uestion of
o%nership of the disputed properties.
Ho%e"er on the contrar$ the$ %ere
the ones %ho presented the pro)ect of
partition claiming the 0uestioned
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
3/25
properties as part of the testator,s
assets. B$ presenting their pro)ect of
partition petitioners themsel"es put in
issue the 0uestion of o%nership of the
properties.
*inall$ petitioners claimed that
respondents %ere estopped to raise
the 0uestion of o%nership because the
%ido% herself during her lifetime did
not ob)ect to the inclusion of these
properties in the in"entor$ of the
assets of her deceased husband.
Ho%e"er since there is no%ledge of
the facts and no appraisal of rights at
the time the act %as made as the %ife
executed in fa"or of her husband not
no%ing that such deed %as illegal or
ine:ectual.
+oroteo v. CA, GR !!,
+ecem$er !, (((
Parties:
1. ourdes egaspi Dorotheo2. icente
Dorotheo and ?ose Dorotheo.
The$ are legitimate children of
Ale)andro Dorotheo and Aniceta
#e$es.
Facts:
ourdes Dorotheo &led a special
proceeding for the probate of the %ill
of Ale)andro Dorotheo further claiming
that she had taen care of Ale)andro
before he died. The estate of
Ale)andro,s %ife %ho died ahead of
him %as not settled ho%e"er prior to
his death. This %ill %as admitted in
1@41 %ith icente and ?ose not
appealing from said order.
Ho%e"er the$ &led a motion to
declare the %ill intrinsicall$ "oid. The
trial court granted the motion further
declaring ourdes egaspi Dorotheo
not the %ife of Ale)andro. ie%ise
respondents %ere declared as the onl$heirs of Ale)andro and Aniceta. This
%as no%n as the ?anuar$ '5 1@4
decision.
ourdes ho%e"er mo"ed for the
decision,s reconsideration arguing
that she %as entitled to some
compensation since she too care of
Ale)andro prior to his death although
the$ %ere not married to each other.
Her 9# %as denied ho%e"er.
he appealed to the CA but it %as
dismissed due to her failure to &le
appellant,s brief %ithin the extended
period granted. The dismissal became
&nal and executor$ on *ebruar$ '
1@4@ and it %as recorded into the
entr$ of )udgment of the CA. A %rit of
execution %as issued b$ the lo%er
court to implement the &nal and
executor$ order.
#espondents &led se"eral motions
including a motion to compel
petitioner to surrender to them the
Transfer Certi&cates of Titles co"ering
the properties of Ale)andro and e"en
for the cancellation of the titles and
issuance of ne% titles %hen petitioner
refused to do so.
An order %as issued at a later date
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
4/25
interlocutor$ hence not &nal in
character. This order %as challenged
b$ respondents through a 9# %hich
%as denied and a petition before the
CA %hich e"entuall$ nulli&ed the
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
5/25
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
6/25
The trial court ruled in fa"or of
defendants and dismissed the
complaint. As regards ot (5@ the
Extra)udicial ettlement and ale
executed b$ the heirs of ?oa0uin and
9arcelina %as dul$ executed.9oreo"er if there %ere indeed
in&rmities in the deed the right to
bring an action for partition and
recon"e$ance had alread$ prescribed
as it %as &led after ( $ears from the
disco"er$ of fraud as in the case for
annulment of partition or after 15
$ears from the registration of the deed
or from the issuance of the title as for
action for recon"e$ance. The trial
court also held that ha"ing been
prepared and acno%ledged before a
notar$ public the extra)udicial
settlements o"er the t%o lots %ere
"ested %ith public interest and hence
its sanctit$ should be upheld unless
o"er%helmed b$ clear and con"incing
e"idence.
The CA a8rmed the "alidit$ of the
extra)udicial settlements but modi&edthe #TC,s decision ordering the
deli"er$ of the 1L4 portion of ot 3@/A
%hich correspond to the share of
Cresenciano Te"es to his son #icardo
Te"es after the lot,s partition. As for
ot (5@ their claims %ere alread$
barred b$ prescription after the lapse
of 15 $ears from the issuance of title
in fa"or of Asuncion %hile their claim
o"er ot 3@/A %as barred b$ laches
since more than 26 $ears had alread$
inter"ened bet%een the date of sale
and the &ling of the action. 9oreo"er
although Cresenciano %as not a
signator$ thereto it could not order
the recon"e$ance of his share in such
land in fa"or of his heir #icardo
because Cresenciano predeceased
?oa0uin Te"es and he #icardo %as
represented b$ his mother %hen the
heirs authori7ed the sale of their
shares.
Issue:
The primar$ issue in this case is the
"alidit$ of the settlements executed
pursuant to ection 1 of #ule 3( of the
#ules of Court.
Ruling:
The extra)udicial settlements executed
b$ the heirs %ere legall$ "alid and
binding.
*or the partition to be "alid se"eral
re0uisites must concur. These are
thatF a the decedent left no %ill; b
the decedent left no debts or if there
%ere debts left all had been paid; c
the heirs are all of age or if the$ are
minors the minors are represented b$
their )udicial guardian or legal
representati"es; and d the partition
%as made b$ means of a public
instrument or a8da"it dul$ &led %ith
the #egister of Deeds.
9oreo"er the Deeds of Extra)udicial
ettlement %ere public documents
and it is settled in the Court that a
public document executed %ith all the
legal formalities is entitled to a
presumption of truth as to the recitals
contained therein.
E"en though the Deed of Extra)udicial
ettlement and ale %hich co"ered ot
(5@ did not contain the names or
signatures of edro and Cresenciano
Te"es %ho predeceased ?oa0uin Te"es
the$ or their heirs do not lose the right
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
7/25
to the share in the partition of the
propert$. This is so due to the right of
representation.
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
8/25
ino died ahead of Geno"e"a.
>irginia &led a petition and pra$ed
that she be appointed as administratix
of the properties of the spouses ino
and Geno"e"a. +n her petition thechildren of the &rst marriage %ere
included as co/heirs.
eonardo ?r. %ho %as the son of
eonardo r. &led for the exclusion of
his father,s name as %ell as those of
his aunts and uncle from the petition
because the$ %ere the children of the
&rst marriage and the$ had alread$
recei"ed their inheritance consisting of
&"e parcels of land.
>irginia ?imene7 %as later on
appointed administrator of the
+ntestate Estate of ino ?imene7 and
Geno"e"a Caolbo$. +n her in"entor$
she included the &"e parcels of land
%hich %ere MinheritedN b$ the children
of the &rst marriage. As a
conse0uence eonardo ?r. mo"ed for
the exclusion of said properties on the
ground that said properties hadalread$ been ad)udicated to the
children of the &rst marriage b$ their
father ino.
The probate court ordered the
exclusion of the &"e parcels of land
from the in"entor$ on the basis of the
Tax Declaration sho%ing that the
sub)ect properties %ere ac0uired
during the con)ugal partnership of ino
?imene7 and Consolacion !ngson and
a Deed of ale %herein Geno"e"a
Caolbo$ stated that the sub)ect
properties had been ad)udicated b$
ino ?imene7 to his children b$ a
pre"ious marriage.
etitioners &led an 9# %hich %as
denied.
In appeal to the CA b$ petitioners
the CA dismissed the petition. aid
dismissal %as due to the Geno"e"a,sadmission that the sub)ect parcels of
land had been ad)udicated to the
children of the pre"ious marriage; that
long before ino,s marriage to
Geno"e"a the properties %ere alread$
titled in the name of ino; that the
claim of >irginia ?imene7 %as barred
b$ prescription as the action %as &led
in 1@41 more than 15 $ears from
Geno"e"a,s admission in 1@(; and
that >irginia %as barred b$ laches.
T%o $ears after petitioner &led an
amended complaint to reco"er
possession or o%nership of the sub)ect
&"e parcels of land as part of the
estate of ino ?imene7 and Geno"e"a.
The trial court resol"ed to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of res
)udicata and said fate %as had for
their 9#. The CA lie%ise dismissed
petitioners, appeal.
Issue:
The issue is %hether in a settlement
proceeding the lo%er court has
)urisdiction to settle 0uestions of
o%nership and %hether res )udicata
exists as to bar petitioners, present
action for the reco"er$ of possession
and o%nership of the &"e parcels of
land.
Ruling:
The Court re"ersed the CA,s decision.
A probate court can onl$ pass upon
0uestions of title pro"isionall$. As the
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
9/25
probate court,s &ndings are not
conclusi"e a separate proceeding is
necessar$ to establish the o%nership
of the &"e parcels of land. This is so
because of the probate court,s limited
)urisdiction and the principle that0uestions of title or o%nership %hich
result in inclusion or exclusion from
the in"entor$ of the propert$ can onl$
be settled in a separate action.
9oreo"er the probate court could onl$
determine as to %hether the propert$
should or should not be included in the
in"entor$ or list of properties to be
administered b$ the administrator. +f
there is a dispute as to the o%nership
then the opposing parties and the
administrator ha"e to resort to an
ordinar$ action for a &nal
determination of the conOicting claims
of title because the probate court
cannot do so.
*or res )udicata to appl$F 1 there
must be a prior &nal )udgment or
order; 2 the court rendering the
)udgment or order must ha"e
)urisdiction o"er the sub)ect matter
and o"er the parties; ' the )udgment
or order must be on the merits; and
( there must be bet%een t%o cases
the earlier and the instant identit$ of
parties identit$ of sub)ect matter and
identit$ of cause of action. +n the case
at bar there is no identit$ in the
causes of action. Hence such claim
does not exist.
This is so as one action %as for the
settlement of the intestate estate of
ino ?imene7 and Geno"e"a Caolbo$
%hile the other action %as for the
reco"er$ of possession and o%nership
of the &"e parcels of land. Hence an$
pronouncements made b$ the probate
court as to the title %ere not
conclusi"e and could still be attaced
in a separate proceeding.
As to the issue of prescription andlaches due to the number of the
factual issues raised b$ petitioners
before the lo%er court there should be
the presentation of e"idence at a full/
blo%n trial. This is so because the C
is not a trier of facts.
Lacenal v. Salas, GR No. L-"''6,
0%ne ", (6)
Parties:
1. +ldefonso achenal Elias
achenal +renea antos *lora
anches and ictorio achenal.'. Hon. Emilio alas. He %as the
presiding )udge of the C*+ of
asig.
Facts:
+ldenfoso achenal son of >ictorio
achenal %as named executor of his
father,s %ill. +n his in"entor$ he
included achenal >++ a &shing boat.
The executor &led in the settlement of the testate estate of >ictorio achenal
before the C*+ of asig a motion to
re0uire the spouses ope eonio and
*la"iana achenal/eonio to pa$ the
rentals for the lease of achenal >++
and to return the boat to
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
10/25
*la"iana ho%e"er opposed such
motion. he claimed that she %as the
o%ner of the boat because she
purchased it from her father in 1@3.
uch argument %as contained in her
motion to exclude. uch motion %asopposed b$ the executor.
A commissioner %as designated b$
the probate court in order to recei"e
e"idence of the parties relati"e to the
o%nership of the motorboat. *la"iana
&nished her presentation %hile the
executor did not present his
countera"ailing e"idence.
+nstead the executor together %ith>ictorio,s other children &led an
action before the C*+ of Caloocan Cit$
for the reco"er$ of the motorboat
achenal >++ %ith bac rentals and
damages against the spouses eonio
and three other children of >ictorio
named Crispula 9odesto and
Esperan7a.
The$ alleged that >ictorio in 1@(
leased the said motorboat to his son/in/la% ope eonio for a monthl$
rental of 2555.55 and that after
>ictorio,s death the executor of his
estate demanded from eonio the
return of the boat and the pa$ment of
the bac rentals.
ubse0uentl$ the executor and his
group &led in the probate court their
motion to exclude the said motorboat
from the testator,s estate on the
ground that the probate court had no
)urisdiction to decide the 0uestion as
to its o%nership because said matter
%as to be resol"ed b$ the Caloocan
court.
The probate court ruled ho%e"er that
it had )urisdiction o"er the issue of
o%nership because the heirs had
agreed to present their e"idence on
that point before a commissioner.
The executor and his group &led
special ci"il actions of prohibition and
certiorari against the probate court
before the C.
Issue:
The issue is %hether the probate court
should be allo%ed to continue the
hearing on the o%nership of the
&shing boat or %hether that 0uestion
should be left to the determination of
the Caloocan court %here the
subse0uent separate action %hich
%as on the pre/trial stage for the
reco"er$ of the motorboat is pending.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the title to the
&shing boat should be determined in
the separate action because it
a:ected the lessee eonio %ho %as a
third person %ith respect to the estate
of >ictorio although he %as the
latter,s son/in/la%.
+t has been held that %here a part$ in
a probate proceeding pra$s for the
inclusion in or exclusion from the
in"entor$ of a piece of propert$ the
court ma$ pro"isionall$ pass upon the
0uestion %ithout pre)udice to its &naldetermination in a separate action.
9oreo"er for the reco"er$ or
protection of the propert$ rights of the
decedent an executor or
administrator ma$ bring or defend in
the right of the decedent actions for
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
11/25
causes %hich sur"i"e. +n the instant
case the executor &led a separate
action in the Caloocan Court for the
reco"er$ of the &shing boat and bac
rentals from the eonio spouses.
robate )urisdiction includes all
matters relating to the settlement of
estates and the probate of %ills of
persons particularl$ the
administration of the decedent,s
estate the pa$ment of his debts
0uestions as to collation or
ad"ancements to heirs the li0uidation
of the con)ugal partnership and the
partition and distribution of the estate.
+t %as intimated b$ the Court that
since the contro"ers$ is among
members of the same famil$ the
Caloocan court should endea"or to
persuade the litigants to agree upon
some compromise.
7aneclang v. Ba%n and Ba%n, GR
No. L-'6!6), April '', (('
Parties:
1. Adelaida 9aneclang. he is the
administrator of the +ntestate
Estate of 9argarita uri antos.2. ?uan Baun and Amparo Baun'. Cit$ of Dagupan
Facts:
9argarita uri antos died intestate.he %as sur"i"ed b$ her husband
e"ero 9aneclang and nine children.
he left se"eral parcels of land among
%hich %as ot
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
12/25
angasinan an action for the
annulment of the sales made b$ the
pre"ious administrator the
cancellation of titles reco"er$ of
possession and damages against ?uan
Baun and Amparo Baun and the Cit$of Dagupan among others. The cause
of action against the Cit$ of Dagupan
%as the deed of sale executed b$ it
%ith the former administrator Iscar
9aneclang.
+t %as alleged b$ plainti: that Iscar
9aneclang %as induced b$ then
ma$or Att$. Angel *ernande7 to sell
the propert$ to the Cit$ of Dagupan
and that the Cit$ had been leasing the
premises to numerous tenants at the
rate of 5.4' per s0uare meter per
month.
The Trial Court ruled that the Deed of
ale entered bet%een 9aneclang and
the Cit$ of Dagupan %as "oid ab initio;
hence it ordered for the Deed,s
annulment. +t further ordered the
cancellation of the Certi&cate of Title
issued in fa"or of the Cit$ of Dagupan
the issuance of a ne% Certi&cate of
Title in fa"or of plainti: as
administratix the Cit$ of Dagupan to
pa$ accumulated rentals or reasonable
"alue of the use of the propert$ in
fa"or of plainti: and the plainti: to
reimburse the Cit$ of Dagupan %hich
is to deducted from the amount due
the plainti: from the defendant.
The trial court based its decision on
the absence of notices of the
application gi"en to the heirs of
9argarita. 9oreo"er estoppel did not
lie against plainti: as no estoppel
could be predicated on an illegal act.
*inall$ the Cit$ of Dagupan %as not a
purchaser in good faith and for "alue
as the former )udicial administrator
Iscar 9aneclang testi&ed that he %as
induced to enter into the sale.
The Cit$ of Dagupan appealed to theC alleging that the decision %as
contrar$ to la% and that the amount
in"ol"ed exceeded 655555.55.
Issues:
The issues include the "alidit$ of the
sale entered into bet%een the )udicial
administrator and the Cit$ of
Dagupan estoppel on the part of the
plainti: and the &nding that the Cit$
of Dagupan %as not a purchaser in
good faith.
Ruling:
+t %as argued b$ the Cit$ of Dagupan
that notice of the application for
authorit$ to sell gi"en to 9argarita,s
sur"i"ing spouse e"ero %as deemed
su8cient notice to the minor chidren
being the designated legal
representati"e pursuant to Article '25
of the Ci"il Code. This argument
ho%e"er did not hold %ater. This is so
because the petition for authorit$ to
sell %as &led prior to the e:ecti"it$ of
the Ci"il Code as the petition %as &led
on 1@(@. Hence the go"erning la%
%as Article 16@ of the Ci"il Code of
pain. aid pro"isions pro"ide that
the father or mother is the
administrator of the child,s propert$.
Despite the pro"isions so cited it does
not follo% that for purposes of
compl$ing %ith the re0uirement of
notice under #ule 4@ of the #ules of
Court notice to the father is notice to
the children. ections 2 ( and 3 of
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
13/25
said #ule state explicitl$ that the
notice %hich must be in %riting must
be gi"en to the heirs de"isees and
legatees and that the court shall &x a
time and place for hearing such
petition and cause to be gi"en to theinterested parties.
The re0uirement of notice %as not
complied %ith as the notice %as gi"en
onl$ to e"ero.
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
14/25
%hich he bases his suit; and ( in)ur$
or pre)udice to the defendant in the
e"ent relief is accorded to the
complainant or the suit is not held
barred. +n the case at bar the action
%as &led after 12 $ears 15 monthsand 2( da$s after the sale %as
executed in 1@62.
During the execution of the deed of
sale ( of the nine children %ere
alread$ of age including Iscar %ho
executed said deed. Iscar then
cannot be expected to renounce his
o%n act. -ith respect to the other '
Hector Cesar and Amanda the$
should ha"e taen immediate steps to
protect their rights. Their failure to do
so for 1' $ears amounted to such
inaction and dela$ as to constitute
laches. This cannot appl$ to the rest
of the children ho%e"er as the$ could
not ha"e &led an action to protect
their interests. Hence neither dela$
nor negligence could be attributed to
them as basis for laches. The estate is
entitled to reco"er 6L@ of the0uestioned propert$.
The issue on good faith on the Cit$ of
Dagupan,s end %as lie%ise
discussed. The trial court in ruling out
good faith too into account the
testimon$ of Iscar 9aneclang to the
e:ect that it %as 9a$or *ernande7 and
Councilor Teo&lo Guadi7 r. induced
him to sell the propert$ and that the
execution of the sale %as %itnessed b$the Cit$ *iscal. The C did not agree
ho%e"er.
The order granting the motion for
authorit$ to sell %as issued during the
incumbenc$ of administratorship of
*eliciano %hich %as prior to
9aneclang,s administration. Hence
Iscar 9aneclang cannot be said to
ha"e been induced to sell the propert$
as there %as alread$ the order
authori7ing the sale.
The Court lie%ise ruled that %hen it
&led its Ans%er the Cit$ of Dagupan
became a possessor in bad faith.
Hence prior to such &ling the Cit$
%as a possessor in good faith. Being a
possessor in good faith it is entitled to
the fruits recei"ed before the
possession %as legall$ interrupted
hence the pa$ment accumulated
rentals from the time it possessed the
propert$ until the &ling of the
complaint %as not proper.
5ntestate Estate of te +eceased
Gelacio Se$ial v. Se$ial, GR No. L-
'*"(, 0%ne '6, (6
Parties:
1. Ben)amina ebial. A petitioner.
he %as appointed as
administratrix of the estate of
Gelacio ebial.2. #oberta ebial ?uliano ebial
and the heirs of Balbina ebial.
ri"ate respondents. The$ are
the children of Gelacio in the
&rst marriage.
Facts:
Gelacio ebial %as married t%ice.
-ith his &rst %ife eoncia 9aniis
%ho died in 1@1@ he had three
children namel$ #oberta Balbina and
?uliano. -ith his second %ife Dolores
Enad %hom he married in 1@23 he
had six children namel$ Ben)amina
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
15/25
>alentina Ciriaco Gregoria
Esperan7a and uciano.
-hen Gelacio died in 1@(' one of his
children %ith Dolores Ben)amina &led
in the C*+ of Cebu a "eri&ed petitionfor the settlement of his estate in
1@5. Ben)amina pra$ed that she be
appointed administratrix of the estate.
Ine of the children in the &rst
marriage #oberta opposed the
petition on the ground that the estate
of Gelacio had alread$ been
partitioned among his children.
9oreo"er if indeed an administration
proceeding %as necessar$ she should
be appointed as administratrix as she
%as li"ing in Guimba%ian a remote
mountain barrio of inamunga)an
%here the decedent,s estate %as
supposedl$ located unlie Ben)amina
%ho %as a housemaid %oring at
Talisa$ %hich %as 35 ilometers a%a$
from inamunga)an.
The children of the &rst marriage
contended in a supplemental
opposition that the remed$ of
Ben)amina %as an action to rescind
the partition.
The trial court appointed Ben)amina as
administratrix. +t lie%ise found that
the decedent left an estate consisting
of lands %ith an area of 21 hectares
"alued at more than 555.55 and
that the alleged partition of
decedent,s estate %as in"alid andine:ecti"e. Correspondingl$ letters of
administration %ere issued to
Ben)amina as %ell as notice to
creditors.
The oppositors mo"ed for the
reconsideration of the order
appointing Ben)amina as
administratrix and reiterated their
claim that the estate of Gelacio %as
alread$ partitioned and that the action
to rescind the partition had alread$
prescribed. This opposition %asdenied b$ the trial court ho%e"er.
The oppositors &led a motion to
terminate the administration
proceeding on the grounds that the
estate %as "alued at less than
555.55 and that there %as no
necessit$ for the administration
proceeding as the estate %as alread$
partitioned.
Ben)amina &led an in"entor$ and
appraisal of the decedent,s estate.
Correspondingl$ the oppositors
registered their opposition to the
in"entor$ on the ground that the
se"en parcels of land enumerated in
the in"entor$ no longer formed part of
the decedent,s estate.
The probate court ho%e"er ordered
the suspension of the action due tothe possibilit$ of an amicable
settlement. +t lie%ise ordered the
parties to prepare a complete list of
the properties belonging to the
decedent %ith a segregation of the
properties belonging to each marriage.
The oppositors %ho are the children of
the &rst marriage submitted their o%n
in"entor$ of the con)ugal assets of
Gelacio and eoncia consisting of t%o
parcels of land. The$ alleged that the
properties %ere partitioned as follo%sF
P %ere partitioned in fa"or of #oberta
?uliano and *rancisco as representati"e
of estate of Balbina %hile J %as
partitioned to >alentina ebial as
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
16/25
representati"e of the six children of
the second marriage. This %as
opposed b$ the administratrix.
The lo%er court inexplicabl$ re0uired
the administratrix to submit anotherin"entor$ to %hich the administratrix
complied %ith. The oppositors
opposed the in"entor$ and &led a
motion for re"ision of partition. The
second in"entor$ submitted b$ the
administratrix %as appro"ed b$ the
court because there %as allegedl$ a
prima facie e"idence to sho% that the
se"en parcels of land and t%o houses
listed therein belonged to the
decedent,s estate.
The lo%er court lie%ise granted the
motion of the administratrix for the
deli"er$ to her of certain parcels of
land and directed the heirs of Gelacio
to deli"er these properties to
administratrix. +t lie%ise denied
oppositors, motion for re"ision of
partition.
#oberta ebial mo"ed for thereconsideration of the t%o orders.
ending resolution ho%e"er the
oppositors &led a notice of appeal %ith
the CA. About during that time the
trial court denied oppositors, 9#.
The CA certi&ed the court to the C
because in its opinion the appeal
in"ol"ed onl$ the legal issues of the
construction of ection 2 #ule 3( and
ection 1 #ule 4( #ule 4' of the
#ules of Court and %hether an
ordinar$ ci"il action for reco"er$ of
propert$ and not an administration
proceeding is the proper remed$. The
Cler of Court of the lo%er court in its
letter transmitting the amended
record on appeal said that there %as
presentation of e"idence b$ either
part$ concerning the t%o parties.
+n her appeal #oberta appealed that
she %as a pauper and in )ustif$ingtheir circumstances her husband and
her nephe% &led a mimeographed
brief and s%ore that their families
subsisted on root crops because the$
could not a:ord to bu$ corn grit or
rice.
Issue:
The issue in"ol"ed the conOicting
claims of Ben)amina and #oberta.
Ruling:
Ine of the arguments of the
oppositors %as that the probate court
had no )urisdiction to appro"e the
in"entor$ because the administratrix
&led it after three months from the
date of her appointment. This %as not
%ell/taen b$ the C.
The three/month period prescribed in
ection 1 #ule 4( #ule 4( %as not
mandator$. After the &ling of a
petition for the issuance of letters of
administration and the publication of
the notice of hearing the proper C*+
ac0uires )urisdiction o"er a decedent,s
estate and retains that )urisdiction
until the proceeding is closed. The
fact that an in"entor$ %as &led after
three months %ould not depri"e theprobate court of )urisdiction to
appro"e it. The administrator,s
unexplained dela$ in &ling the
in"entor$ ma$ be a ground for his
remo"al ho%e"er.
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
17/25
The second contention of oppositors
%as that inasmuch as the "alue of the
estate %as less than 6555.55 and he
had no debts the estate could be
settled summaril$ or that the
administration proceeding %as notnecessar$. Ho%e"er the "alue of the
estate %as not ascertained b$ the
lo%er court ho%e"er.
+t %ould not be useful ho%e"er to
dismiss the petition and order a ne%
petition for summar$ settlement
according to the Court. +t considered
that the probate court could still
proceed summaril$ and expeditiousl$
as a regular administration %as
alread$ appointed and notice to
creditors issued and %ith no claims
&led.
The C intimated that la%$ers of
parties should stri"e to e:ect an
amicable settlement of the case.
hould it fail the probate court should
then ascertain %hat assets constituted
the estate of Gelacio %hat happened
to those assets and %hether the
children of the second marriage could
still ha"e a share.
The C furthered that the lo%er court,s
order appro"ing the amended
in"entor$ %as not a conclusi"e
determination of %hat assets belonged
to the decedent as %ell their
"aluations. This is so as determination
of probate court is pro"isional and%ithout pre)udice to a )udgment in a
separate action on the issue of title or
o%nership.
The lo%er court,s orders re0uiring
deli"er$ of properties to administratrix
%ere erroneous as the probate court
failed to recei"e e"idence as to the
o%nership of the said parcels of land.
aid orders %ere set aside b$ the C.
+n the case of oren7o #ematado and
a7aro #ecuelo %ho are not heirs of the decedent the$ are considered
third persons. As a rule matters
a:ecting propert$ under
administration ma$ be taen
cogni7ance of b$ the probate court in
the course of the intestate
proceedings pro"ided that the
interests of third persons are not
pre)udiced. Ho%e"er third persons to
%hom the decedent,s assets had been
fraudulentl$ con"e$ed ma$ be cited to
appear in court and be examined
under oath as to ho% the$ came into
the possession of the decedent,s
assets but a separate action %ould be
necessar$ to reco"er the said assets.
The Court ruled that the probate court
should re0uire the parties to present
further proof on the o%nership of the
se"en parcels of land and the
materials of the t%o houses
enumerated in the in"entor$.
2e Estate of /ilario R%i4 v. CA,
GR No. !)6, 0an%ar& '(, (()
Parties:
1. Edmond #ui7. He is the
petitioner. He is lie%ise theexecutor of the estate of Hilario
#ui7.2. 9aria ilar #ui7/9ontes 9aria
Cathr$n #ui7 Candice Albertine
#ui7 9aria Angeline #ui7. The$
are the pri"ate respondents.
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
18/25
Facts:
+n the holographic %ill of Hilario #ui7
he named as his heirs the follo%ingF
his son Edmond #ui7 his adopted
daughter 9aria ilar #ui7 9ontes andhis three granddaughters 9aria
Cathr$n Candice Albertine and 9aria
Angeline %ho are children of Edmond
#ui7. He lie%ise named Edmond #ui7
as executor of his estate.
-hen Hilario #ui7 died in 1@44 the
cash component of his estate %as
distributed among Edmond and
pri"ate respondents. Ho%e"er the
executor Edmond did not tae an$action for the probate of his father,s
holographic %ill.
*our $ears after Hilario,s death it %as
pri"ate respondent 9aria ilar the
testator,s adopted daughter %ho &led
before the #TC a petition for the
probate and appro"al of Hilario,s %ill
and for the issuance of letters
testamentar$ to Edmond #ui7.
Ho%e"er Edmond #ui7 opposed thepetition on the ground that the %ill
%as executed under undue inOuence.
Edmond #ui7 leased out to third
persons the properties of the estate
>alle >erde properties %hich %ere
be0ueathed to the granddaughters.
In such regard the probate court
ordered Edmond to deposit %ith the
Branch Cler of Court the rental
deposit and pa$ments representing
the one/$ear lease of the >alle >erde
propert$. +n compliance Edmond
turned o"er the balance of the rent
after deducting the expenses for
repair and maintenance.
Edmond later one %ithdre% his
opposition to the probate of the %ill.
Conse0uentl$ the probate court
admitted the %ill to probate and
ordered the issuance of letters
testamentar$ to Edmond conditionedupon the &ling of the bond in the
amount of 65555.55. The letters
testamentar$ %ere issued.
etitioner Testate Estate of Hilario #ui7
%ith Edmond #ui7 as executor &led an
MEx/arte 9otion for #elease of *undsN
pra$ing for the release of the rent
pa$ments deposited %ith the Branch
Cler of Court. #espondent 9ontes
opposed the motion and &led a motion
for release of funds to certain heirs
and for issuance of certi&cate of
allo%ance of probate %ill. he pra$ed
for the release of said rent pa$ments
to Hilario,s granddaughters and for the
distribution of the testator,s properties
>alle >erde propert$ and Blue #idge
apartments in accordance %ith the
pro"isions of the holographic %ill.
The probate court denied petitioner,s
motion for release of funds. +t granted
respondent 9ontes, motion in "ie% of
petitioner,s lac of opposition and
ordered the release of rent pa$ments
to the decedent,s three
granddaughters. +t lie%ise ordered
the deli"er$ of the titles and
possession of the properties
be0ueathed to the ' granddaughters
and respondent 9ontes upon the &lingof a bond of 65555.55.
etitioner mo"ed for reconsideration.
He alleged that he actuall$ &led his
opposition to respondent 9ontes,
motion for release of rent pa$ments
%hich opposition the court failed to
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
19/25
consider. He lie%ise reiterated his
pre"ious motion for the release of
funds.
etitioner later on manifested that he
%as %ithdra%ing his motion for therelease of funds because the lease
contract o"er the >alle >erde propert$
had been rene%ed for another $ear.
Despite this the probate court ordered
the release of funds to Edmond but
onl$ such amount as ma$ be
necessar$ to co"er the expenses of
administration and allo%ances for
support of the testator,s three
granddaughters sub)ect to collation
and deductible from their share in the
inheritance. +t held in abe$ance
ho%e"er the release of the titles to
respondent 9ontes and the three
granddaughters until the lapse of six
months from the date of &rst
publication of the notice to creditors.
The court ordered Edmond #ui7 to
submit an accounting of the expenses
necessar$ for administration including
pro"isions for the support of the
testator,s granddaughters.
This order %as assailed b$ petitioner
before the CA %hich the CA
dismissed. Hence petitioner &led a
petition before the C "ia a petition for
re"ie% on certiorari.
Issues:
The issue for resolution is %hether theprobate court after admitting the %ill
to probate but before pa$ment of the
estate,s debts and obligations has the
authorit$ to grant an allo%ance from
the funds of the estate for the support
of the testator,s grandchildren to
order the release of the titles to
certain heirs and to grant possession
of all properties of the estate to the
executor of the %ill.
Ruling:
Edmond #ui7 alleged that ection ' of
#ule 4' onl$ gi"es the %ido% and the
minor or incapacitated children of the
deceased the right to recei"e
allo%ances for support during the
settlement of estate proceedings. He
furthered that the testator,s three
granddaughters his o%n daughters
do not 0ualif$ for an allo%ance
because the$ %ere not incapacitatedand %ere no longer minors but alread$
of legal age married and gainfull$
emplo$ed. 9oreo"er the pro"ision
excludes the latter,s grandchildren as
said pro"ision expressl$ states
Mchildren.N
Although allo%ances for support
should not be limited to the minor or
incapacitated children of the
deceased grandchildren are notentitled to pro"isional support from
the funds of the decedent,s estate.
This is so because the la% clearl$
limits the allo%ance to %ido% and
children and does not extend it to the
deceased,s grandchildren regardless
of their minorit$ or incapacit$. Hence
it %as error for the appellate court to
sustain the probate court,s order
granting an allo%ance to thegrandchildren of the testator pending
settlement of his estate.
The C also held that the appellate
and probate courts erred %hen the$
ordered the release of the titles of the
be0ueathed properties to pri"ate
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
20/25
respondents six months after the date
of &rst publication of notice to
creditors. +t has been held that in the
settlement of estate proceedings the
distribution of the estate properties
can onl$ be made after all the debtsfuneral charges expenses of
administration allo%ance to the
%ido% and estate tax ha"e been paid;
or before pa$ment of said obligations
onl$ if the distributes or an$ of them
gi"es a bond in a sum &xed b$ the
court conditioned upon the pa$ment
of said obligations %ithin such time as
the court directs or %hen pro"ision is
made to meet those obligations.
+n the case at bar the 0uestioned
order speas of MnoticeN to creditors
not pa$ment of debts and obligations.
9oreo"er the taxes on Hilario,s estate
had not been paid nor ascertained.
*inall$ at the time the order %as
issued the properties of the estate
had not $et been in"entoried and
appraised.
+t %as too earl$ for the court to issue
said order after admitting the %ill to
probate. This is so as 0uestions
regarding the intrinsic "alidit$ and
e8cac$ of the pro"isions of the %ill
the legalit$ of an$ de"ise or legac$
ma$ be raised e"en after the %ill has
been authenticated. uch so %as
raised b$ Edmond.
etitioner assailed the distributi"eshares of the de"isees and legatees
inasmuch as his father,s %ill included
the estate of his mother and allegedl$
impaired his legitime as an intestate
heir of his mother. Ho%e"er Edmond
cannot correctl$ claim that the
assailed order depri"ed him of his
right to tae possession of all the real
and personal properties of the estate.
The right to an executor or
administrator to the possession and
management of the real and personal
properties of the deceased is notabsolute and can onl$ be exercised so
long as it is necessar$ for the pa$ment
of the debts and expenses of
administration.
Qet Edmond must be reminded that
he has merel$ inchoate right of
o%nership o"er the properties of his
father as long as the estate has not
been full$ settled and partitioned. As
executor he is a mere trustee of his
father,s estate. The funds of the
estate in his hands are trust funds and
he is held to the duties and
responsibilities of a trustee of the
highest order. He cannot unilaterall$
assign to himself and possess all of his
parents, properties and the fruits
thereof %ithout &rst submitting an
in"entor$ and appraisal of all real and
personal properties of the deceasedrendering a true account of his
administration the expenses of
administration the amount of the
obligations and estate tax.
Except as to orders granting an
allo%ance to the grandchildren and
release of titles to the pri"ate
respondents upon notice to creditors
the CA,s decision %as a8rmed.
Sociedad de Li4arrage /ermanos
v. A$ada, GR No. *(,
Septem$er 6, ((
Parties:
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
21/25
1. ociedad de i7arrage
Hermanos. The$ are the
petitioners. +n their fa"or does
decedent *rancisco Caponong
o%ed a sum of mone$.
2. *elicisima Abada. he %as thedecedent,s %ido% and %as
appointed administratrix of the
estate.'. ?anuario Granada. He is the
guardian of the minor children
of Caponong.
Facts:
Decedent *rancisco Caponong at the
time of his death o%ed ociedad dei7arraga Hermanos a sum of mone$
%hich %as then less than the amount
allo%ed b$ the commissioners.
Caponong,s %ido% *elicisima Abada
%as appointed administratrix of the
estate. Commissioners to appraise
the estate and to pass on the claims
against the estate %ere dul$
appointed and before the
commissioners did petitioner presenttheir claims amounting to 1234'.3(.
9ean%hile administratrix leased the
hacienda MCoronacionN to Hilario
a$co for a term of $ears. Ho%e"er
after she married >icente Al"are7 the
lease %as transferred to Al"are7 b$
a$co.
e"en $ears after the death of
Caponong the petitioners &led a suitbefore the C*+ of Iccidental
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
22/25
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
23/25
The la% declares that the
commissioners shall pass upon all
claims against the estate. The$ had
done so in this case. The la% &xed the
limit of the estate,s liabilit$. The court
could not charge it %ith debts that%ere ne"er o%ed b$ it. The
administratrix could onl$ charge the
estate %ith the reasonable and proper
expenses of administration.
The estate o%ed petitioners less than
1'555.55 %hen the commissioners
passed on their claim. After se"eral
pa$ments the balance due them
during trial %as 4666.34 plus
interest. After their claim had been
presented and allo%ed b$ the
commissioners petitioners made
ad"ances to the administratrix till their
claim %as more than 4555.55.
etitioners claimed that ma)or part of
this debt %as for administration
expenses and hence chargeable
against the assets of the estate.
Administration expense %ould be
necessar$ expenses of handling the
propert$ of protecting it against
destruction or deterioration and
possibl$ producing a crop. Ho%e"er if
petitioners holding a claim originall$
for less than 1'555.55 against the
estate let the administratrix ha"e
mone$ and e:ects till their claim gro%
to 4555.55 the$ cannot be
permitted to charge this amount as
expense of administration. The$might be allo%ed to charge it against
the current re"enue from the hacienda
or the net proceeds of the exploitation
of the hacienda for %hich it %as
obtained and used but it cannot relate
bac to the presenting of their claim to
the commissioners and be a charge
against the inheritance of the heirs or
e"en a claim to prorate %ith other
creditors, claims allo%ed b$ the
commissioners.
The court could not appro"e a
settlement saddling upon the estate
debts it ne"er %ed and if it did its
appro"al %ould be a nullit$. Hence
the contract %as a dead letter and the
appro"al of the court could not
breathe the breath of life into it.
ie%ise the mortgage %as "oid. This
is so as no mortgage can be placed b$
an administrator on the estate of adescendant unless it is speci&call$
authori7ed b$ statute. There is no
statute in the hilippine +slands
authori7ing it.
In the issue of attachment it %as not
proper as the properties %ere in the
name and possession of the
administratrix %ere in custodia legis
and could not be la%full$ attached.
The same %as for the recei"ership.
The court summed up that the claim
should ha"e been %holl$ denied. +t
reduced the claim of 1'22.65 to
422.65.
8illal%4 v. Neme and 8illafranca,
GR No. L-")6), 0an%ar& *, ()*
Parties:
1. Candida >illalu7. he %as the
daughter of edro >illalu7 and
niece of inforosa atricia and
9aria.
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
24/25
2. ?uan illafranca.
Facts:
9aria #ocabo,s children %ere
inforosa atricia 9aria edro
e"erina and Gregoria. -hen 9aria
#ocabo died onl$ three sur"i"edF
inforosa atricia and 9aria. edro,s
children %ere Candida Emilia
Clemencia #oberto and +sidra all
surnamed >illalu7. e"erina,s children
%ere +sabelo and Teodoro illalu7, refusal to surrender
the title to the donees unless gi"en a
share and upon the ad"ice of the
notar$ public Carlos de ?esus
The three concurred on the partition to
the exclusion and %ithout the
no%ledge and consent of their
nephe%s and nieces. The ICT %as
cancelled and TCTs %ere issued in the
names of inforosa atricia and 9aria.
The three declared the land for
taxation purposes in their names.
The$ sold the land to #amona a)arillo
%ife of Adriano 9ago and Angela
a)arillo %ife of ?uan
8/18/2019 Cases on Settlement of Estate
25/25
the decedent namel$ inforosa
atricia 9aria and her grandchildren.
The deed of extra/)udicial partition %as
fraudulent and "icious as the same
%as executed among the ' sisters%ithout including their co/heirs %ho
had no no%ledge of and consent to
the same. The partition did not and
could not pre)udice the interest and
participation of the petitioners and
the sale of the land to the defendants
did not and could not also pre)udice
and a:ect petitioners, interest and
participation. The cancellation of the
ICT and the issuance of TCT did not
lie%ise pre)udice the interest and the
participation of the petitioners. The
three sisters could not ha"e sold %hat
did not belong to them.