TEODORA RIOFERIO vs.

CA
G.R. No. 129008, January 13, 2004
Tinga, J.:
FACTS:
Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will and left several personal and real properties. He also
left a widow, respondent Esperanza P. Orfinada, whom he had seven children who are the
herein respondents
The decedent also left his paramour and their children. They were the herein petitioner
Teodora Rioferio and co-petitioners Veronica, Alberto and Rowena, their children.
Respondents Alfonso James and Lourdes (legitimate children of the deceased) discovered that
petitioner Teodora and her children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a
Deceased Person with Quitclaim involving the properties of the estate of the decedent located
in Dagupan City.
Respondent Alfonso Clyde Orfinada III filed a Petition for the issuance of Letters of
Administration. Respondents also filed a Complaint for the Annulment/Rescission of Extra
Judicial Settlement of Estate. Petitioners filed their ANSWER on the said Complaint and
interposed that the property SUBJECT OF THE CONTESTED DEED OF EXTR JUDICIAL
SETTLEMENT raised the affirmative defense that respondents are not the real parties-in-
interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of the pendency of the
administration proceedings. Petitioners filed a Motion to Set Affirmative Defense for Hearing
but was denied by the lower court stating that the respondents, as heirs are the real parties-in-
interest especially in the absence of an administrator who is yet to be appointed.
Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied prompting them
to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and averred that RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA ruled against the petitioners, hence this petition
before the Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the heirs have legal standing to prosecute the rights belonging to the deceased
pending the appointment of an administrator.
HELD:
YES. The Court ruled that pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without
doubt have legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in accordance
with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil Code "that (t)he rights to succession are
transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent." The provision in turn is the
foundation of the principle that the property, rights 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 been commenced, the heirs may still bring the
suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the proper modality despite the total
lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation.
Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence recognized two exceptions, namely:
a) If the executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit; and
b) When the administrator is alleged to have participated in the act complained of and is
made a party defendant.
Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to seek judicial relief to recover the 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 disinclined to bring suit or is one of the guilty parties himself.
Hence, this case provided for the third exception to the rule that the heirs have no legal
standing to sue for the recovery of the estate during the pendency of administration
proceedings.