RIOFERIO VS CA

GR NO 129008

FACTS:
Alfonso Orfinada Jr. died intestate leaving several properties in various places
He left a widow respondent Esperanza Orfinada with whom he had children ( the
herein Respondents) and a paramour, Teodora Rioferio, with whom he also had
children (the Petitioners)
Respondents discovered that the Petitioners Teodora and her children executed an
EXTRA JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF A DECEASED PERSON WITH QUIT CLAIM
involving the properties of Alfonsos estate in Dagupan City
They also found out that petitioners where able to obtain a loan (700k) from Rural
Bank of Mangaldan by executing a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties subject
of the Extra Judicial Settlement
The petitioners as the legal heirs of Alfonso, filed an action to annul/rescind the said
settlement as well as a petition for Letters of Administration upon learning of the Extra
Judicial Settlement
petitioner file a motion to set affirmative defense, and raised that respondents are
anot the real parties-in-interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso Orfinada Jr., in view
of the pendency of the Administrative proceedings
The lower court denied the motion on the ground that respondents are the real
parties-in-interest, especially in the absence of an administrator who is not yet
appointed.

ISSUE: W/N THE HEIRS MAY BRING A SUIT TO RECOVER THE PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE
PENDING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR

HELD:
YES
Pending the filing of the administration proceedings, the heirs without doubt have
legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in accordance
with ART. 777,NCC
``THAT THE RIGHTS TO SUCCESION ARE TRANSMITTED FROM THE MOMENT
OF THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT``
The provision is the foundation of the principle that the property right and obligations
to the extent and value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his
death to another or others by his will or by operation of law.
Even if administration proceedings have already commenced, the heirs may still bring
the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed.

This is proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on
party representation, namely section 3, rule 3 and section 2, rule 87 of the Rules of
Court.

In the case of Gochan vs. Young the SC recognize the legal standing of the heirs to
represent the rights and properties of the decedent under administration pending
appointment of an administrator.
EXCEPTIONS:

However even if there is an appointed administrator, juris prudence recognizes (2)

two EXCEPTIONS:

If the executor/administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit; and

When the administrator is alleged to have participated in the act complained
of and he is made party defendant. Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to
seek judicial relief to recover property of the estate is compelling when there
is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where there is an appointed
administrator but he is either disciplined to bring suit or is one of the guilty
parties himself.

Therefore, the rule that THE HEIRS HAVE NO LEGAL STANDING TO SUE FOR
THE RECOVERY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE DURING THE PENDENCY OF
ADMINISTRATION PROCEEDINGS has (3) three exceptions

When there is no appointed administrator such as in this case.