You are on page 1of 1

RULE 74

FULE vs. FULE


G.R. No. 21859 September 30, 1924
INTESTATE ESTATE OF SATURNINO FULE, deceased. CIRIACO FULE,
Petitioner-appellant, vs. ANASTACIO FULE, ET.AL., Opponents-appellees.

JOHNSON, J.:
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
Saturninos 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
deceaseds 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 182184, 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.