RULE 74

UTULO vs. GARCIA

GR 45904, September 30,1938

Facts:

1. Juan Garcia Sanchez died intestate leaving as heirs his widow, Leona and 3 legitimate children (Juan, Patrocinio and Luz);

2. Luz died leaving her mother and husband, Pablo, as forced heirs;3. Pablo then commenced an action for the judicial administration of the property of

Luz which was opposed by Leona on the grounds that since Luz left no indebtedness, there was no occasion for the said judicial administration;

4. TC ruled in favor of the applicant Pablo

Issue: A. WON, there is a need for an appointment administrator;

1. WON, Leona has a better right to be an administrator as compared to Pablo.

Held:

A. 1. No, Sec 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, “if no executor is named in the will, or if a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted, etc.” However, this is subject to exception under Sec. 596-597.

Sec.596, “when all heirs are all of legal age and there are no debts due from the estate, they may agree in writing in to partition the property without instituting the judicial administration or applying for the appointment of an administrator”

Sec 597. ”if the property left does not exceed 6,000, the heirs may apply to the competent court, after the required publications, to proceed with the summary partition and, after paying all the known obligations, to partition all the property constituting the inheritance among themselves pursuant to law, without instituting the judicial administration and the appointment of an administrator”

2. When a person dies without leaving pending obligations to be paid, his heirs, whereafter, of age or not, are not bound to submit the property to a judicial administration, which is always long and costly, or to apply for the appointment of an administrator by the court. It has been uniformly held that in such case the judicial administration and the appointment of an administrator are superfluous and unnecessary proceedings.

B. No need to determine which of the parties has preferential right to the office of administrator

RULE 74FULE vs. FULEG.R. No. 21859 September 30, 1924

FACTS: 1. On April 4, 1923, Saturnino Fule died intestate. On July 2, one of his heirs,

Ciriaco Fule, presented a petition in the CFI of Laguna for the appointment of Cornelio Alcantara as special administrator of Saturnino’s estate.

2. Petitioner Ciriaco alleged that at the time of death, the deceased was the owner of real and personal property in San Pablo, Laguna amounting to P50,000 with a rental value of about P8,000. In addition, he also left P30,000 in cash.

3. The lower court then appointed Alcantara as special administrator. 4. On July 31, the children of Saturnino opposed through a motion alleging

that: (a) they were all of age and, (b) that they opposed the appointment of an administrator on the ground that the deceased had left no debts and that his property had already been partitioned among his children during his lifetime in conformity with article 1056 of the Civil Code, (c) that the special administrator had taken possession of property of large value belonging to them, and had thereby deprived them of their means of livelihood, and prayed that the order appointing a special administrator be denied.

5. Petitioner then prayed for the motion of the oppositors to be denied alleging that the latter had been requested to make a partition of the property of the deceased; there was no partition of the property and that, the disputed property described in Exhibit A was his exclusive and absolute property in quiet, public and exclusive possession as owner for more than 40 years.

6. On August 15 the lower court revoked the appointment of special administrator and ordered him to render an account. The appointment of an administrator was then denied and the court recommended that petitioner amend his petition within 30 days from this date and present an ordinary action for partition.

7. On September 5 petitioner excepted to said order and presented a motion for reconsideration or new trial and prayed that the court declare without effect said August 15 order and proceed to the appointment of an ordinary administrator who should present a project of partition for approval.

8. On September 11, oppositors opposed upon the ground that the judgment of August 15 had become final and non-appealable.

9. On September 17, the lower court annulled and set aside the August 15 order, which granted to petitioner the right to amend his petition and fixed October 4 as the day within which the proof upon such questioned appointment of an administrator should commence.

10. On October 26, the petition was denied by the lower court on the principal ground that all of the deceased’s property had been in the possession of his heirs for many years before his death; and that at the time of his death there were no debts and no property to be administered. Petitioner appealed.

11. Meanwhile, oppositors moved for the dismissal of such appeal on the ground that it had not been perfected within the 20-day period under Sec.783 of Act No.190.

ISSUES:1. Whether or not the appeal from the decision of the lower court was perfected

within the required time.2. Whether or not the court erred in refusing to appoint an administrator for the

estate of the deceased.

HELD:1. YES. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of August 15, 1923, was not

final; the final judgment rendered in the case was on the October 26, 1923 and that, the appeal from the final judgment was perfected within time.

2. NO. It may be said (a) that it is admitted by all of the parties to the present action, that at the time of his death no debts existed against his estate and (b) that all of the heirs of Saturnino Fule were of age.

In the case of Bondad vs. Bondad (34 Phil., 232), Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano said: " 'Under the provisions of the Civil Code (articles 657 to 661), the rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment of his death; in other words, the heirs succeed immediately to all of the property of the deceased ancestor. The property belongs to the heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to them a deed for the same before his death. In the absence of debts existing against the estate, the heirs may enter upon the administration of the said property immediately. If they desire to administer it jointly, they may do so. If they desire to partition it among themselves and can do this by mutual agreement, they also have that privilege… " (Sections 182-184, 196, and 596 of Act No. 190.)

When the heirs are all of lawful age and there are no debts there is no reason why the estate should be burdened with the cost and expenses of an administrator. The administrator has no right to intervene in any way whatsoever in the division of the estate among the heirs when they are adults and when there are no debts against the estate. (Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa, supra;Bondad vs. Bondad, supra; Baldemor vs. Malangyaon, supra.)

3. Judgment appealed from is affirmed.