Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Settlement of Estate
Parties:
1. Ricardo Teves, Arcadia Teves,
Tomas Zamora, Felicia Teves, et.
al. They are heirs of Joaquin
Teves. Ricardo is the son of
Cresenciano Teves.
2. Asuncion Teves It-It. A daughter
of Marcelina Cimafranca and
Joaquin Teves.
3.
Facts:
Marcelina Cimafranca and Joaquin
Teves died intestate and without
debts. They were survived by their
eight children, Teotimo, Felicia, Pedro,
Andres,
Asuncion,
Gorgonio,
Cresenciano, Arcadia and Maria. Their
children
executed
extrajudicial
settlements on two separate occasions
1943 and 1953 purporting to
adjudicate
unto
themselves
the
ownership over two parcels of land
and alienate them in favor of
Asuncion.
On May 9, 1984, Ricardo and Arcadia
Teves filed a complaint with the RTC of
Negros Oriental for the partition and
reconveyance of the two parcels of
land (Lots 769-A and 6409) against the
heirs of Asuncion Teves.
The
complaint was amended to include as
plaintiffs the heirs of Teotimo, Felicia,
Flaviana
however
opposed
such
motion. She claimed that she was the
owner of the boat because she
purchased it from her father in 1967.
Such argument was contained in her
motion to exclude. Such motion was
opposed by the executor.
A commissioner was designated by
the probate court in order to receive
evidence of the parties relative to the
ownership of the motorboat. Flaviana
finished her presentation while the
executor
did
not
present
his
counteravailing evidence.
Instead, the executor, together with
Victorios other children, filed an
action before the CFI of Caloocan City
for the recovery of the motorboat
Lachenal VII with back rentals and
damages against the spouses Leonio
and three other children of Victorio,
named
Crispula,
Modesto
and
Esperanza.
They alleged that Victorio in 1964
leased the said motorboat to his sonin-law, Lope Leonio, for a monthly
rental of P2,000.00 and that after
Victorios death, the executor of his
estate demanded from Leonio the
return of the boat and the payment of
the back rentals.
Subsequently, the executor and his
group filed in the probate court their
motion to exclude the said motorboat
from the testators estate on the
ground that the probate court had no
jurisdiction to decide the question as
to its ownership because said matter
was to be resolved by the Caloocan
court.
Pangasinan
an
action
for
the
annulment of the sales made by the
previous
administrator,
the
cancellation of titles, recovery of
possession and damages against Juan
Baun and Amparo Baun, and the City
of Dagupan, among others. The cause
of action against the City of Dagupan
was the deed of sale executed by it
with the former administrator Oscar
Maneclang.
It was alleged by plaintiff that Oscar
Maneclang was induced by then
mayor Atty. Angel Fernandez to sell
the property to the City of Dagupan
and that the City had been leasing the
premises to numerous tenants at the
rate of P0.83 per square meter per
month.
The Trial Court ruled that the Deed of
Sale entered between Maneclang and
the City of Dagupan was void ab initio;
hence, it ordered for the Deeds
annulment.
It further ordered the
cancellation of the Certificate of Title
issued in favor of the City of Dagupan,
the issuance of a new Certificate of
Title
in
favor
of
plaintiff
as
administratix, the City of Dagupan to
pay accumulated rentals or reasonable
value of the use of the property in
favor of plaintiff, and the plaintiff to
reimburse the City of Dagupan, which
is to deducted from the amount due
the plaintiff from the defendant.
The trial court based its decision on
the absence of notices of the
application given to the heirs of
Margarita. Moreover, estoppel did not
lie against plaintiff as no estoppel
could be predicated on an illegal act.
Finally, the City of Dagupan was not a
Maneclangs administration.
Hence,
Oscar Maneclang cannot be said to
have been induced to sell the property
as there was already the order
authorizing the sale.
The Court likewise ruled that when it
filed its Answer, the City of Dagupan
became a possessor in bad faith.
Hence, prior to such filing, the City
was a possessor in good faith. Being a
possessor in good faith, it is entitled to
the
fruits
received
before
the
possession was legally interrupted
hence the payment accumulated
rentals from the time it possessed the
property until the filing of the
complaint was not proper.
Valentina,
Ciriaco,
Esperanza, and Luciano.
Gregoria,
moved
for
the
of
the
order
appointing
Benjamina
as
administratrix and reiterated their
claim that the estate of Gelacio was
already partitioned and that the action
to rescind the partition had already
prescribed.
This opposition was
denied by the trial court however.
The oppositors filed a motion to
terminate
the
administration
proceeding on the grounds that the
estate was valued at less than
P6,000.00 and that there was no
necessity
for
the
administration
proceeding as the estate was already
partitioned.
Benjamina filed an inventory and
appraisal of the decedents estate.
Correspondingly,
the
oppositors
registered their opposition to the
inventory on the ground that the
seven parcels of land enumerated in
the inventory no longer formed part of
the decedents estate.
The probate court however ordered
the suspension of the action due to
the
possibility
of
an
amicable
settlement. It likewise ordered the
parties to prepare a complete list of
the properties belonging to the
decedent, with a segregation of the
properties belonging to each marriage.
The oppositors who are the children of
the first marriage submitted their own
inventory of the conjugal assets of
Gelacio and Leoncia, consisting of two
parcels of land. They alleged that the
properties were partitioned as follows:
were partitioned in favor of Roberta,
Juliano and Francisco as representative
of estate of Balbina, while was
partitioned to Valentina Sebial as
Issue:
The issue involved the conflicting
claims of Benjamina and Roberta.
Ruling:
One of the arguments of the
oppositors was that the probate court
had no jurisdiction to approve the
inventory because the administratrix
filed it after three months from the
date of her appointment. This was not
well-taken by the SC.
The three-month period prescribed in
Section 1, Rule 84 (Rule 84) was 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 CFI
acquires jurisdiction over a decedents
estate and retains that jurisdiction
until the proceeding is closed. The
fact that an inventory was filed after
three months would not deprive the
probate court of jurisdiction to
approve it.
The administrators
unexplained delay in filing the
inventory may be a ground for his
removal however.
Facts:
In the holographic will of Hilario Ruiz,
he named as his heirs the following:
his son Edmond Ruiz, his adopted
daughter Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes, and
his
three
granddaughters
Maria
Cathryn, Candice Albertine and Maria
Angeline who are children of Edmond
Ruiz. He likewise named Edmond Ruiz
as executor of his estate.
When Hilario Ruiz died in 1988, the
cash component of his estate was
distributed
among
Edmond
and
private respondents.
However, the
executor, Edmond, did not take any
action for the probate of his fathers
holographic will.
Four years after Hilarios death, it was
private respondent Maria Pilar, the
testators adopted daughter, who filed
before the RTC a petition for the
probate and approval of Hilarios will
and for the issuance of letters
testamentary
to
Edmond
Ruiz.
However, Edmond Ruiz opposed the
petition on the ground that the will
was executed under undue influence.
Edmond Ruiz leased out to third
persons the properties of the estate
(Valle Verde properties) which were
bequeathed to the granddaughters.
On such regard, the probate court
ordered Edmond to deposit with the
Branch Clerk of Court the rental
deposit and payments representing
the one-year lease of the Valle Verde
property.
In compliance, Edmond
turned over the balance of the rent,
after deducting the expenses for
repair and maintenance.
1. Sociedad
de
Lizarrage
Hermanos.
They are the
petitioners. In their favor does
decedent Francisco Caponong
owed a sum of money.
2. Felicisima Abada. She was the
decedents widow and was
appointed administratrix of the
estate.
3. Januario Granada.
He is the
guardian of the minor children
of Caponong.
Facts:
Decedent, Francisco Caponong, at the
time of his death owed Sociedad de
Lizarraga Hermanos a sum of money,
which was then less than the amount
allowed by the commissioners.
Caponongs widow, Felicisima Abada,
was appointed administratrix of the
estate.
Commissioners to appraise
the estate and to pass on the claims
against
the
estate
were
duly
appointed
and,
before
the
commissioners did petitioner present
their claims amounting to P12,783.74.
Meanwhile, administratrix leased the
hacienda Coronacion to Hilario
Zayco for a term of years. However,
after she married Vicente Alvarez, the
lease was transferred to Alvarez by
Zayco.
Seven years after the death of
Caponong, the petitioners filed a suit
before the CFI of Occidental Negros
against Abada personally and as
administratrix of the estate of
Caponong. They alleged that from the
time she had the hacienda leased up
to 1912, Abada received from them
money and effects which were used in
The
law
declares
that
the
commissioners shall pass upon all
claims against the estate. They had
done so in this case. The law fixed the
limit of the estates liability. The court
could not charge it with debts that
were never owed by it.
The
administratrix could only charge the
estate with the reasonable and proper
expenses of administration.
The estate owed petitioners less than
P13,000.00 when the commissioners
passed on their claim. After several
payments, the balance due them
during trial was P8,555.78, plus
interest. After their claim had been
presented and allowed
by the
commissioners,
petitioners
made
advances to the administratrix till their
claim was more than P68,000.00.
Petitioners claimed that major part of
this debt was for administration
expenses and hence chargeable
against the assets of the estate.
Administration expense would be
necessary expenses of handling the
property, of protecting it against
destruction or deterioration, and
possibly producing a crop. However, if
petitioners holding a claim originally
for less than P13,000.00 against the
estate, let the administratrix have
money and effects till their claim grow
to
P68,000.00
they cannot
be
permitted to charge this amount as
expense of administration.
They
might be allowed to charge it against
the current revenue from the hacienda
or the net proceeds of the exploitation
of the hacienda for which it was
obtained and used, but it cannot relate
back to the presenting of their claim to
2. Juan Neme
Villafranca.
and
Felicisima
Facts:
Maria
Rocabos
children
were
Sinforosa, Patricia, Maria, Pedro,
Severina, and Gregoria. When Maria
Rocabo died, only three survived:
Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria. Pedros
children
were
Candida,
Emilia,
Clemencia, Roberto and Isidra, all
surnamed Villaluz. Severinas children
were Isabelo and Teodoro Napoles.
Gregorias children were Sinforosa and
Leonor Napoles. Maria Rocabo died
intestate.
The issues are whether the extrajudicial partition only affected the
portions of Sinforosa, Patricia and
Maria, whether the petitioners were
barred, and whether defendants were
indeed
owners,
with
right
of
possession, of said land.
Petitioners appealed.
They alleged
that the extra-judicial partition only
affected the partition of Sinforosa,
Patricia and Maria on the land in
question, and that their claims were
not barred.
Issue:
Ruling:
The
petitioners
position
is
meritorious.
The land in question
should be divided among the heirs of
the
decedent
namely
Sinforosa,
Patricia, Maria and her grandchildren.
The deed of extra-judicial partition was
fraudulent and vicious as the same
was executed among the 3 sisters
without including their co-heirs, who
had no knowledge of and consent to
the same. The partition did not and
could not prejudice the interest and
participation of the petitioners, and
the sale of the land to the defendants
did not and could not also prejudice
and affect petitioners interest and