Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SPECPRO_MTG3

SPECPRO_MTG3

Ratings: (0)|Views: 26 |Likes:
Published by Janz Serrano
under Prof. dela Cerna 2nd sem AY '11-'12
credits go to the persons cited in the document
under Prof. dela Cerna 2nd sem AY '11-'12
credits go to the persons cited in the document

More info:

Published by: Janz Serrano on Apr 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1DE LA CERNA SPECPRO DIGESTS 2011 AMIN | CHA | JANZ | KRIZEL | VIEN
 Monserrat v. Ibañez
DISCLAIMER: Credit for this digest goes to Block C2013.
Facts
:
 
Vicenta Salamanca died intestate leaving 5 heirs (1 son, 4 daughters). Ramon, theson, filed in CFI Laguna a petition for his appointment as administrator of thepropertyies of deceased mother. His sisters opposed saying that they are all of age,
that the debts and obligations of the estate already paid, that they didn’t want to beburdened with administrative proceedings, and that Ramon’s remedy was to sue for
partition under Rule 74.
 
Judge Ibañez issued an order stating that in accordance with Fule v. Fule, the properremedy should be an action for partition, because all the heirs were of age and therewere no debts. He required the sisters to institute partition proceedings and that thelitigation begun by Ramon will be held in abeyance.
 
Sisters filed an action for partition. Ramon filed this special civil action alleginggrave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge.
o
 
Ramon prayed for the court to proceed with the hearing of his petition foradministration. He asserts that it is not known whether there were any debtsbecause they may be shown only by administration proceedings, but he did not 
assert otherwise when the sisters’ affidavit says there were no debt 
s
o
 
He argues that only when the heirs do not have any dispute as to the bulk of thehereditary estate but only in the manner of partition that Rule 74 Section 1
apply, and that in this case “the parties are at loggerheads as to the corpus of 
the hereditary estate because the respondents succeeded in sequestering some
assets of the intestate.”
 
Issue/Held 
: W/N the administration proceedings should be held in abeyance
 
YES
, Fulev. Fule applies.
Ratio
:
 
Fule v Fule: Where there are no debts, the heirs are NOT bound to submit theproperty to a judicial administration which is always long and costly or to apply foran appointment of an administration by the court. These proceedings aresuperfluous and unnecessary.
 
The creditors are protected even if, without the benefit of the administration, theestate is distributed in an action for partition
 
Questions as to what properly belonged to the deceased (and to their heirs) mayproperly be ventilated in the partition proceedings, esp. where such property is inthe hands of one heir.
 
The question Ramon seeks to raise in the administration proceedings may equallybe decided in the partition suit. Besides, since the sisters constitute 4/5 of the heirs,the majority interest usually gets to select the administrator.
 
SC also said that the admin proceedings will be dismissed soon, inasmuch as thepartition suit has already been instituted, because the court has already intimatedthat the proceedings will be suspended pending the presentation of the other suit.
88 Phil 785 (1950)
 
 
2DE LA CERNA SPECPRO DIGESTS 2011 AMIN | CHA | JANZ | KRIZEL | VIEN
vda. de Rodriguez et. al v. Tan
Quickie
: Rodriguez died. Petitioners and respondent had a
 
verbal agreement whereinthey agreed not to liquidate the estate and to place it under the administration of thewidow. When eventually, petitioners filed a petition for administration of the intestateestate of the deceased, respondents objects because of the rule that if the state is freefrom obligations and the heirs are all of age, no administration proceedings shall beallowed. The Court held that that Rule does not preclude the heirs from institutingadministration proceedings, even if the estate has no debts or obligations, if they do not desire to resort for good reasons to an ordinary action of partition.
 Nature
: petition for
certiorari
seeking to nullify the order of respondent Judge datedAugust 11, 1952, wherein after overruling the opposition to the institution of theintestate estate proceedings of the late Flaviano Rodriguez, he appointed AbelardoRodriguez administrator of the estate upon filing a bond in the sum of P2,000.
Facts
:
 
Flaviano Rodriguez died
 
the surviving heirs are the widow, Fortunata Vda. de Rodriguez, and six childrenwho are the petitioners and respondent Abelardo Rodriguez all the heirs, who werethen already of age, entered into a verbal agreement whereby they agreed not tomake a liquidation of the estate but to place it under the administration of thewidow with the understanding that each of the six children would be entitled toreceive a portion of the income in equal shares from year to year for the needs of their families provided that they do not exceed the participation to which they areentitled
 
eight years after the death of Flaviano Rodriguez, respondent Abelardo Rodriguezfiled a petition for administration of their intestate estate of said deceased in spite of his knowledge that the estate had no debts and all the heirs were of age
 
petitioners herein, objected to the petition invoking the rule that if the estate is freefrom obligations and the heirs are all of age, no administration proceedings shall beallowed
 Argument of respondents:
admitted the existence of a verbal agreement entered intobetween the heirs in 1944, wherein they agreed not to liquidate the estate and to place it under the administration of the widow in view of the unsettled conditions thenprevailing at the time, but they contend that while that was the understanding the samewas not carried out because in reality it was Benjamin Rodriguez, one of the petitionersherein, who took over the administration of the estate and in the discharge of his dutieshe failed and refused to give to respondent Abelardo Rodriguez his share in the incomewhich he badly needed for the support of his family, for which reason he started theintestate proceedings which gave rise to the present petition for
certiorari
.
92 Phil 273 (1952)
Issue
:
whether respondent Judge acted properly in maintaining the administrationproceedings and in appointing Abelardo Rodriguez as administrator of the estatenotwithstanding the fact that the estate has no debts and all the heirs entitled to share inits distribution are all of age.
Held 
:
 
Under section 1, rule 74 of the Rules of Court, if the decedent left no debts andthe heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicialguardians, the parties may, without securing letters of administration, dividethe estate among themselves as they see fit, and should they disagree, they maydo so in an ordinary action of partition.
 
 
section 1 does not preclude the heirs from instituting administrationproceedings, even if the estate has no debts or obligations, if they do not desireto resort for good reasons to an ordinary action of partition.
 
While section 1 allows the heirs to divide the estate among themselves as theymay see fit, or to resort to an ordinary action of partition, it does not compelthem to do so if they have good reasons to take a different course of action.
 
 
Said section is not mandatory or compulsory as may be gleaned from the usemade therein of the word
may 
. If the intention were otherwise the framer of therule would have employed the word
shall 
as was done in other provisions that are mandatory in character.
 
 
3DE LA CERNA SPECPRO DIGESTS 2011 AMIN | CHA | JANZ | KRIZEL | VIEN
Pereira v. CA
Gancayco, J.:
Quickie:
Wife of deceased v Sister of deceased. Both want to be administratrix of estate.Sister won in RTC. SC said this is improper because administration proceedings are not necessary in this case. First, SC said it is not the trier on the question WON deceased left 
an estate. Assuming there’s an estate,
the general rule is that when a person dies leavingproperty, the same should be judicially administered and the competent court shouldappoint a qualified administrator, in the order established in Section 6, Rule 78, in casethe deceased left no will, or in case he had left one, should he fail to name an executortherein. An exception to this rule is established in Section 1 of Rule 74 which says, whenall the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts due from the estate, they may agreein writing to partition the property without instituting the judicial administration orapplying for the appointment of an administrator.While Section 1 allows the heirs to divide the estate among themselves as theymay see fit, or to resort to an ordinary action for partition, the said provision does not compel them to do so if they have good reasons to take a different course of action. It should be noted that recourse to an administration proceeding even if the estate has nodebts is sanctioned
only if the heirs have good reasons for not resorting to an actionfor partition. Where partition is possible, either in or out of court, the estateshould not be burdened with an administration proceeding without good andcompelling reasons.
 
Nature:
Petition for review on certiorari
Facts:
 
Andres de Guzman Pereira, an employee of the Philippine Air Lines, passed away onJanuary 3, 1983 at Bacoor, Cavite without a will. He was survived by his legitimatespouse of ten months, the herein petitioner Victoria Bringas Pereira, and his sisterRita Pereira Nagac, the herein private respondent.
 
Nagac instituted before Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite,Special Proceeding No. RTC-BSP-83-4 for the issuance of letters of administration inher favor pertaining to the estate of the deceased Andres de Guzman Pereira.
 
Nagac: that she and Victoria Bringas Pereira are the only surviving heirs of thedeceased; that the deceased left no will; that there are no creditors of the deceased;that the deceased left several properties, namely: death benefits from the PhilippineAir Lines (PAL), the PAL Employees Association (PALEA), the PAL EmployeesSavings and Loan Association, Inc. (PESALA) and the Social Security System (SSS), aswell as savings deposits with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the PhilippineCommercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), and a 300 square meter lot located at Barangay Pamplona, Las Pinas, Rizal and finally, that the spouse of the deceased(herein petitioner) had been working in London as an auxiliary nurse and as suchone-half of her salary forms part of the estate of the deceased.
 
Pereira filed her opposition and motion to dismiss the petition of privaterespondent 
174 SCRA 154 (1989)
 
Pereira that there exists no estate of the deceased for purposes of administrationand praying in the alternative, that if an estate does exist, the letters of administration relating to the said estate be issued in her favor as the survivingspouse.
 
RTC: appointed private respondent Nagac administratrix of the intestate estate of Andres de Guzman Pereira upon a bond posted by her in the amount of Pl,000.00.The trial court ordered her to take custody of all the real and personal properties of the deceased and to file an inventory thereof within three months after receipt of the order.
 
CA: affirmed the appointment of private respondent as administratrix
Issue/ Held:
Is a judicial administration proceeding necessary when the decedent diesintestate without leaving any debts?
 
NO
Ratio:
 
Inasmuch as this Court is not a trier of facts, We cannot order an unqualified andfinal exclusion or non-exclusion of the property involved from the estate of thedeceased.
 
The resolution of this issue is better left to the probate court before which theadministration proceedings are pending. The trial court is in the best position toreceive evidence on the discordant contentions of the parties as to the assets of thedecedent's estate, the valuations thereof and the rights of the transferees of some of the assets, if any.
 
The function of resolving whether or not a certain property should be included inthe inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator is oneclearly within the competence of the probate court.
 
However, the court's determination is only provisional in character, not conclusive,and is subject to the final decision in a separate action which may be instituted bythe parties.
 
 
Assuming, however, that there exist assets of the deceased Andres de GuzmanPereira for purposes of administration, We nonetheless find the administrationproceedings instituted by private respondent to be unnecessary as contended bypetitioner for the reasons herein below discussed.
 
The general rule is that when a person dies leaving property, the same should bejudicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualifiedadministrator, in the order established in Section 6, Rule 78, in case the deceasedleft no will, or in case he had left one, should he fail to name an executor therein. Anexception to this rule is established in Section 1 of Rule 74.
 
Under this exception, when all the heirs are of lawful age and there are no debts duefrom the estate, they may agree in writing to partition the property without instituting the judicial administration or applying for the appointment of anadministrator.
 
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court, however, does not preclude theheirs from instituting administration proceedings, even if the estate has no debts or

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->