Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The heirs succeed immediately to all of the rights and properties of the deceased at the
moment of the latter's death.7 Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, allows heirs to divide
the estate among themselves without need of delay and risks of being dissipated. When a
person dies without leaving pending obligations, his heirs, are not required to submit the
property for judicial administration, nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by the
court.8
We note that the Court of Appeals found that in this case "the decedent left no debts and the
heirs and legatees are all of age."9 With this finding, it is our view that Section 1, Rule 74 of the
Rules of Court should apply.
In a last-ditch effort to justify the need for an administrator, petitioner insists that there is
nothing to partition yet, as the nature and character of the estate have yet to be determined.
We find, however, that a complete inventory of the estate may be done during the partition
proceedings, especially since the estate has no debts. Hence, the Court of Appeals committed
no reversible error when it ruled that the lower court did not err in converting petitioner's action
for letters of administration into an action for judicial partition.
Nor can we sustain petitioner's argument that the order of the trial court converting an action
for letters of administration to one for judicial partition has no basis in the Rules of Court,
hence procedurally infirm. The basis for the trial court's order is Section 1, Rule 74 of the
Rules of Court. It provides that in cases where the heirs disagree as to the partition of the
estate and no extrajudicial settlement is possible, then an ordinary action for partition may be
resorted to, as in this case. We have held that where the more expeditious remedy of partition
is available to the heirs, then the heirs or the majority of them may not be compelled to submit
to administration proceedings. 10 The trial court appropriately converted petitioner's action for
letters of administration into a suit for judicial partition, upon motion of the private respondents.
No reversible error may be attributed to the Court of Appeals when it found the trial court's
action procedurally in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the assailed decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 31574 are AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED. 1âwphi1.nêt
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 15-16.
2 Id. at 18.
3 Id. at 5.
4 26 SCRA 197, 201-202 (1969).
5 Utulo v. Pasion vda. de Garcia, 66 Phil. 302, 305 (1938).
6 Supra.
7 Art. 777, Civil Code.
8Intestate Estate of Mercado v. Magtibay, 96 Phil. 383, 387 (1954); Utulo v. Pasion
vda. de Garcia, 66 Phil. 302, 305 (1938); Fule v. Fule, 46 Phil 317, 323 (1924),
Baldemor v. Malangyaon, 34 Phil. 367, 369-370 (1916); Bondad v. Bondad, 34 Phil.
232, 235-236 (1916); Malahacan v. Ignacio, 19 Phil. 434, 436 (1911); Ilustre v. Alaras
Frondosa, 17 Phil. 321, 323 (1910).
9 Rollo, p. 18.
10 Intestate of Mercado v. Magtibay, supra.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
!