Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tuazon, Brando
Before there could be a distribution of the estate, the following two stages must
be followed:
Liquidation
Sec. 1. When order for distribution of residue made. When the debts, funeral
charges, and expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow, and inheritance
tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on
the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person interested in the estate,
and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the persons
entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is
entitled, and such person may demand and recover their respective shares from the
executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his possession. If
there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased
person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the
controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.
Sec. 3. By whom expenses of partition paid. If at the time of the distribution the
executor or administrator has retained sufficient effects in his hands which may lawfully
be applied for the expenses of partition of the properties distributed, such expenses of
partition may be paid by such executor or administrator when it appears equitable to the
court and not inconsistent with the intention of the testator; otherwise, they shall be
paid by the parties in proportion to their respective shares or interest in the premises,
and the apportionment shall be settled and allowed by the court, and, if any person
interested in the partition does not pay his proportion or share, the court may issue an
execution in the name of the executor or administrator against the party not paying for
the sum assessed.
Project of Partition
Project of partition is a document prepared by the executor or administrator
setting forth the manner in which the estate of the deceased is to be distributed among
the heirs. If the estate is a testate estate, the project of partition must conform to the
terms of the will; if intestate, the project of partition must be in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Code (Camia de Reyes vs. Reyes de Ilano, 63 Phil. 629).
4. The Court allowed the continuation of a separate action to annul the project of
partition by a preterited heir, since the estate proceedings have been closed and
terminated for over three years (Guilas vs. Judge of the CFI of Pampanga, 43
SCRA 117), and on the ground of lesion, preterition and fraud (Solivio vs. CA, 99
Phil. 1069)
Applicable Jurisprudence
The Issue:
Whether or not the authority granted by the administrator allowing the
respondent to remain in possession of the estate property while its obligations remain
unpaid is valid or not.
the deceased only when it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses of
administration. (Section 3, Rule 84, Revised Rules of Court).
With this in mind, it is without a doubt that the possession by the respondent of
the property in question was absolutely no legal basis considering that her occupancy
cannot pay the debts and expenses of administration.
Additionally, the above provision must be viewed in the context that the subject
property is part of an estate and subject to intestate proceedings before the courts. It is,
thus, relevant to note that in Rule 84, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the administrator
may only deliver properties of the estate to the heirs upon order of the Court. Similarly,
under Rule 90, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the properties of the estate shall only be
distributed after the payment of the debts, funeral charges, and other expenses against
the estate except when authorized by the Court.
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other
officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and
rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or
territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights
which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue
of their profession.
THE ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Special Proceedings 7185 have already been closed and
terminated when the subject lot was transferred to Atty. Suplicio ?
2. What will be the status of the transfer or rights and interest in case the
probate proceedings have not yet been closed?
expressly prohibits lawyers from acquiring property or rights which may be the object of
any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession
THE ISSUE:
Whether or Not herein petitioners can question the validity of partition entered
into and already approved by the court.
The petitioners are in estoppel. In the face of what they havedone, they are
precluded from attacking the validity of thepartition or any part of it. A party can not,
in law and in goodconscience, be allowed to reap the fruits of a partition,agreement or
judgment and repudiate what does not suit him.
OF
APPEALS
and
THE FACTS:
Fe D. Quita, the petitioner, and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in
the Philippines on May 18, 1941. They got divorce in San Francisco on July 23, 1954.
Both of them remarried another person. Arturo remarried Bladina Dandan, the
respondent herewith. They were blessed with six children.
On April 16, 1972, when Arturo died, the trial court was set to declared as to who
will be the intestate heirs. The trial court held that the divorce acquired by the petitioner
is not recognized in our country. Private respondent stressed that the citizenship of
petitioner was relevant where aliens who obtain divorce abroad are recognized in the
Philippines provided they are valid according to their national law.
Subsequently, the Trial court disregarded the respondents statement. The net
hereditary estate was ordered in favor the Fe D. Quita and Ruperto, the brother of
Arturo. Blandina and the Padlan children moved for reconsideration. On February 15,
1988 partial reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children, with the
exception of Alexis, entitled to one-half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan,
and the other half to Fe Quita. Private respondent was not declared an heir, for her
marriage to Arturo was declared void since it was celebrated during the existence of his
previous marriage to petitioner. In their appeal to the Court of Appeals, Blandina and
her children assigned as one of the errors allegedly committed by the trial court the
circumstance that the case was decided without a hearing, in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 90,
of the Rules of Court.
THE ISSUE:
Should this case be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings?
Yes. The act of the Court of Appeals remanding the case to the trial court is
proper.
Here, petitioner insists that there is no need because, first, no legal or factual
issue obtains for resolution either as to the heirship of the Padlan children or as to their
respective shares in the intestate estate of the decedent; and, second, the issue as to who
between petitioner and private respondent is the proper heir of the decedent is one of
law which can be resolved in the present petition based on established facts and
admissions of the parties.
SUPREME COURT: We cannot sustain petitioner. The provision relied upon by
respondent court is clear: If there is a controversy before the court as to who are
the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each
person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in
ordinary cases.