[V. Pereira vs. CA and R. Nagac]/[1989] II.

PROCEDURE SUMMARY
[Gancayco, J.] ACTION FILED BY VENUE DECISION
I. FACTS Issuance of Rita RTC Granted
In 1983, Andres Pereira, PAL employee, died intestate and is Letters of Bacoor
survived by his spouse Victoria Pereira and his sister Rita Administration
Nagac. [Special
Proceeding
No. RTC-
Rita filed before RTC Bacoor an action for issuance of letters of BSP-83-4]
administration in her favor pertaining to the estate of Andres. In Opposition Victoria RTC Denied
her petition, she alleges the following: and Motion to Bacoor
• Andres left no will Dismiss
• She and Victoria are the only surviving heirs Appeal Victoria Court of Denied
• Andres has no creditors Appeals
• Andres left the ff. properties Petition for Victoria Supreme RTC Decision
o Death benefits from PAL, PAL Employees Assoc., PAL Review on Court revoked and
Employees Savings and Loan Assoc. and SSS Certiorari administration
o Savings deposits with PNB and PCIB proceedings
dismissed
o 300sqm lot in Las Piñas
• ½ of the salary of Victoria (works as an auxiliary nurse in
III. ISSUE
London) forms part of the estate of Andres
1. WoN there exists an estate of Andres Pereira for purposes
of administration? Not for the SC to decide. Better left to
Victoria filed an opposition and a motion to dismiss alleging that
the probate court.
there exists no estate of the deceased for purposes of
2. [RELEVANT] WoN a judicial administration proceeding is
administration. In the alternative, should there be an existing
necessary where there are no debts left by the decedent?
estate, she prays that the letters of administration be issued in
Generally, NO. The exception is when there is a good
her favor.
and compelling reason for having an administration
proceeding. In this case, no need for administration
RTC decided in Rita’s favor and appointed her as the
proceeding.
administratrix of Andres’ estate, upon filing of a bond. She was
3. Who has the better right to be appointed as administratrix?
ordered to take custody of all the properties of the deceased and
Unnecessary to resolve due to the ruling in the 2nd issue.
to file an inventory thereof. CA affirmed the decision of the SC.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
IV. RATIONALE
1. SC ruled that the resolution of this issue is best left to the
Arguments before the SC
probate court which is in the best position to receive
VICTORIA on why there is no existing estate
evidence on the contentions of the parties as to the
• The death benefits exclusively belong to her as she is the assets of the decedent’s estate, the valuations thereof
exclusive beneficiary and the rights of the parties. The function of resolving
• The savings deposits were used to defray the funeral whether or not a certain property should be included in the
expenses list of properties to be administered is one clearly within the
• Andres’ only real property has already been extrajudicially competence of the probate court. It’s determination,
ssettled by them (Rita and Victoria) however, is only provisional in character and is subject to the
final decision in a separate action which may be instituted by
RITA parties.
• Not for Victoria to decide what properties form part of the
estate 2. SC found the administration proceedings instituted by Rita
• Above function is vested in the court in charge of the unnecessary. The GENERAL RULE is that when a person
intestate proceedings dies leaving property, the same should be judicially
administered and the competent court should appoint a
qualified administrator [Sec. 6, Rule 78], in case the
deceased left no will, or in case he had left one and fails to
name an executor therein.
 An EXCEPTION to this rule when all the heirs are of lawful V. DISPOSITIVE
age and there are no debts due from the estate, they may WHEREFORE, the letters of administration issued by the
agree in writing to partition the property without instituting the RTC Bacoor to Rita Nagac are hereby revoked and the
judicial administration or applying for the appointment of an administration proceeding dismissed without prejudice her
administrator [Sec. 1, Rule 74]. right to commence a new action for partition of the property left
by Andres Pereira.
It should be noted that this does not preclude the heirs from
instituting administration proceedings, even if the estate has
no debts or obligations, if they do not desire to resort for
good reasons to an ordinary action for partition. While Sec.
1 allows the heirs to divide the estate among themselves as
they may 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.
Where partition is possible, either in or out of court, the
estate should not be burdened with an administration
proceeding without good and compelling reasons. SC
has held that submitting the estate to judicial administration
is always long and costly that they become superfluous and
unnecessary proceedings.

To constitute “good reason”, SC has held in several cases

that when the objectives for resorting to judicial
administration proceeding can be achieved in an ordinary
action of partition, the issuance of letters of administration is
not justified.

In this case, the court sees no good reason to justify the

issuance of the letters of administration. There are only two
parties and it has been admitted that the deceased has no
debts. It is apparent that the parties are not in good terms
and the reason why Rita sought to be appointed as
administratrix is for her to obtain possession of the alleged
properties of Andres for her own purposes. These properties
are in the possession of Victoria, who Rita alleges to have
disposed the properties fraudulently.

SC is of the opinion that that this is not a compelling reason

which will necessitate a judicial administration of the estate
of the deceased. To subject the estate of Andres, which
does not appear to be substantial especially since the
only real property left has been extrajudicially settled, to
an administration proceeding for no useful purpose
would only unnecessarily expose it to the risk of being
wasted or squandered. In most instances of a similar
nature, the claims of both parties as to the properties left by
the deceased may be properly ventilated in simple partition
proceedings where the creditors, should there be any, are
protected in any event.

3. SC finds unnecessary to resolve this issue.