years before his death; and that at the time of hisdeath there were no debts and no property to beadministered. From that judgment the petitionerappealed.
WON the court a quo committed an error inrefusing to appoint an administrator for theestate of Saturnino Fule
-Under the provisions of the Civil Code, the rightsto the succession of a person are transmittedfrom the moment of his death; in other words, theheirs succeed immediately to all of the propertyof the deceased ancestor. The property belongsto the heirs at the moment of the death of theancestor as completely as if the ancestor hadexecuted and delivered to them a deed for thesame before his death. In the absence of debtsexisting against the estate, the heirs may enterupon the administration of the said propertyimmediately. If they desire to administer it jointly,they may do so. If they desire to partition itamong themselves and can do this by mutualagreement, they have also the privilege. TheCode of Procedure in civil Actions provides howan estate may be divided by a petition forpartition in case they cannot mutually agree inthe division.-When the heirs are all of lawfully age and thereare no debts there is no reason why the estateshould be burdened with the cost and expensesof an administrator. The administrator has noright to intervene in any way whatsoever in thedivision of the state among the heirs when theyare adults and when there are no debts againstthe estate.-And even when there are debts against theestate, the heirs, all being of age, may pay thedebts and divide the property among themselvesaccording to their respective rights, as heirs or aslegatees in case of will, without probating thesame, and the effect of such division is to investeach party with a complete equitable title to theirparticular share of state. (Carter vs. Owens, 41Ala., 217.)
Judgment affirmed, withoutprejudice to the right of the Ciriaco to commencean action for partition of any property left bySaturnino Fule which had not already beenpartition among his heirs.
MALCOLM and OSTRAND, JJ., dissent
citingthe policy of the law: that is to encourage definiteand final settlements. They argue that since theestate is alleged to be worth P80T, it is notunreasonable to suppose that there may havehad dealings with others from which claimsagainst the estate may arise, the existence of which cannot be definitely ascertained untilpublication of notice to claimants and creditorshas been made. It would seem to be the interestof all parties concerned to have the estatedefinitely settled and that can only be doneproperly through administration proceedings.-Re: Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa, Bondad vs.Bondad, and Baldemor vs. Malangyaon: In allthree of the cases it is admitted that there wereno debts and considering the long period whichhad elapsed since the death of the deceased,there could be but little probability of any newclaimants appearing. Under such circumstancesthe court might well be justified in holding thatthe appointment of an administrator wasunnecessary.-In the present case we are confronted with anentirely different situation. Here there has beenno partition or distribution by agreement amongthe heirs, the petition for administration waspresented within three months after the death of the deceased, and the estate is large and itssettlement may give rise to unexpectedcomplications.
CASTILLO V CASTILLO
23 PHIL 364ARELLANO; November 5, 1912
- The subject of the suit is a parcel of land inBatangas owned by Simona Madlangbayan. Shedied 7 years ago. It is currently in the possessionof one of her children, Urbano Castillo. There areother descendants of hers who have the sameright to wit: A daughter and some grandchildrenof the deceased brother of full blood of UrbanoCastillo, named Pio Castillo; the daughter of asister of full blood of the same defendant, namedAlfonsa, likewise deceased; and a daughter of ahalf-brother of the said Urbano Castillo, namedEstefano Libingting, also deceased. Theydemanded division of the land- Defendant Urbano Castillo endeavored to provethat his mother had other property which duringher lifetime she disposed of to the benefit of some of the plaintiffs.- The trial court ordered that the land be dividedbetween the plaintiffs and defendant.
1. WON the heirs may demand division of theproperty2. WON Simona disposed of her property duringher lifetime for the benefit of the plaintiffs
It is not a principle authorized by lawthat heirs of legal age may not demand thedivision of a real property, left them by theirpredecessor-in-interest and held by a coheir,without first initiating special intestateproceedings during which a judicial administratoris to be appointed, who alone is vested with thepersonality to claim the property that belongs tothe succession. On the contrary, such heirs areexpressly authorized to do so, unless for thereason of there being unpaid debts, judicialintervention becomes necessary, which was notalleged as a special defense in this suit.2. NO
Such is a question of fact, which maynot be entertained by the Court. The trial courthas already declared the document conveyingproperties to the plaintiffs to be false. And eventhough the said instrument were not false, thetrial court declared it to be void and ineffective. The alleged gift was in fact null and void sincethere was no acceptance from the donee.
HERNANDEZ V ANDAL
78 Phil. 196 TUAZON; March 29, 1947
FACTS-The plaintiff, Cresencia Hernandez, theintervenors, Maria and Aquilina Hernandez, andPedro and Basilia Hernandez who are not partieshere, are brother and sisters. They acquired incommon by descent from their father a parcel of land. Intervenors sold 1800 square meters of thisparcel, a portion which is particularly described inthe deed of conveyance to Zacarias Andal, thedefendant, and Andal's wife in consideration of P860.