SpecPro Digest by M.

Dizon
Rule 90 – Distribution and Partition of the Estate
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Gatmaitan v. Medina
G.R. No. L-14400 | August 5, 1960 | Reyes, JBL, J.

Parties:

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

Felicisimo Gatmaitan, administrator Gorgonio Medina, co-administrator

Doctrine:
A partial distribution of the decedent's estate pending the final termination of the testate or intestate
proceedings should as much as possible be discouraged by the courts and, unless in extreme cases, such
form of advances of inheritance should not be countenanced. The reason for this strict rule is that courts
should guard with utmost zeal the estate of the decedent to the end that creditors be adequately protected
and rightful heirs assured of their shares in the inheritance.

ITC, the order of partial distribution appealed from is unwarranted. Firstly, because it was prematurely issued,
the period for the presentation of claims not having as yet elapsed; and secondly, because no bond was fixed
by the court as a condition precedent to the partial distribution ordered by it.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CASE SUMMARY
Trigger word/s:

FACTS: Gatmaitan filed a petition seeking his appointment as administrator of the property of his wife,
Veronica, who died intestate. Dominica Medina and Medina (deceased’s siblings), as heirs, filed an
opposition, praying that Medina, or a neutral third party, or jointly Gatmaitan and Medina be appointed as
administrator/s of the estate. Gatmaitan and Medina were appointed as administrator and co-administrator,
respectively. Gatmaitan filed an amended inventory of the estate consisting of an undivided half of the
conjugal partnership and properties, which was opposed by the Medinas on the ground that the same did not
represent the true and faithful list of properties left by the deceased. In view of the opposition, the hearing
and consideration of the amended inventory was postponed.

The Medinas then filed a Motion for Partial Partition and Distribution, praying for the partial distribution of
their share in the palay produce from 1956-1957 and the cash deposit in different banks. The lower court,
without receiving any evidence whatsoever, promulgated the assailed Order. Gatmaitan filed a MFR, which
was denied for lack of merit. He also filed a notice of appeal from the order and informed the Medinas that
he would move for its approval, but the latter failed to file a written opposition thereto. The record on appeal
was approved.

Gatmaitan alleged that the lower court gravely abused its discretion in directing a partial distribution of the
intestate estate of Veronica in favor of appellees without requiring the distributees to file the proper bonds,
pursuant to the provisions of Rule 91, Sec. 1 of the Revised ROC. The appeal was originally taken to the
CA but since there is no serious issue of fact involved, the same was certified to the SC pursuant to the
CA’s resolution.

ISSUE: W/N the lower court erred in rendering the Order allowing the partial partition and
distribution—YES.

HELD: Firstly, the partial distribution was prematurely ordered by the lower court. When the questioned
order was rendered, the amended inventory and appraisal filed by Gatmaitan was not yet even accepted,
and was still under consideration by the court. Moreover, notices for the presentation of claims by possible
creditors of the estate had not yet been published, so that the period has not as yet elapsed.

1
SpecPro Digest by M. Dizon
Rule 90 – Distribution and Partition of the Estate
Consequently, it cannot be safely said that the court had a sufficient basis upon which to order a partial
distribution of the properties, having in mind the adverse effects it might have on the rights of creditors and
the heirs alike.
Secondly, bond was fixed by the court as a condition precedent to the partial distribution it ordered.
Rule 91, Sec. 1 of the ROC provides that “[n]o distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations
above mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the distributees or any of them, give a bond, in a
sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time as the court
directs."

While the wording of the appealed order seems to indicate that it was rendered with the conformity of the
heirs, there is reason to believe that it was just a mistaken impression on the part of the court. Gatmaitan had
filed an MFR, stating that he never agreed to the partial distribution of the estate in the manner ordained in
the appealed order. Although said motion was denied for lack of merit, the court did not categorically deny
Gatmaitan’s imputation.

Furthermore, the bond required by the Rules is both for the protection of the heirs then appearing and for the
benefit of creditors and subsequent claimants who have not agreed to the advances.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
FACTS
• Gatmaitan filed a petition seeking his appointment as administrator of the property of his wife,
Veronica, who died intestate. Dominica Medina and Medina (deceased’s siblings), as heirs, filed an
opposition, praying that Medina, or a neutral third party, or jointly Gatmaitan and Medina be appointed
as administrator/s of the estate.
o The court appointed Gatmaitan as administrator with a bond of P2,000 and Medina as co-
administrator without compensation and bond.
• Gatmaitan filed an amended inventory of the estate consisting of an undivided half of the conjugal
partnership and properties.
o An opposition to the admission of the inventory was registered by the oppositors on the ground
that the same did not represent the true and faithful list of properties left by the deceased and,
particularly, a parcel of 22 hectares of land was left out.
o In view of the opposition, the hearing and consideration of the amended inventory was
postponed until further assignment.
• The Medinas filed a Motion for Partial Partition and Distribution, praying that the share corresponding
to each of the heirs in the palay produce for 1956-1957 and the cash deposit in different banks be
ordered partially distributed among the heirs pending the final distribution of the estate.
o Without receiving any evidence, the court promulgated the assailed Order.
o Gatmaitan filed a MFR, which was denied for lack of merit.
• Gatmaitan filed a notice of appeal from the foregoing orders. He filed the record on appeal and notified
the oppositors’ counsel of the date he would move for its approval.
o The record on appeal was approved in an Order, which also stated that the oppositors’ counsel
failed to file written opposition thereto.
• Gatmaitan, in his brief, only alleged that the lower court gravely abused its discretion in directing a
partial distribution of the intestate estate of Veronica in favor of appellees without requiring the
distributees to file the proper bonds, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 91, Sec. 1 of the Revised
ROC.

CASE TRAIL
• The appeal was originally taken to the CA but since there is no serious issue of fact involved, the
same was certified to the SC pursuant to the CA’s resolution.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ISSUES & HELD

1. W/N the lower court erred in rendering the Order allowing the partial partition and distribution—
YES.
● The partial distribution was prematurely ordered by the lower court.
o When the questioned order was rendered, the amended inventory and appraisal filed by
Gatmaitan was not yet even accepted, and was still under consideration by the court.
2
SpecPro Digest by M. Dizon
Rule 90 – Distribution and Partition of the Estate
Moreover, notices for the presentation of claims by possible creditors of the estate had not
yet been published, so that the period has not as yet elapsed.
o Consequently, it cannot be safely said that the court had a sufficient basis upon which to
order a partial distribution of the properties, having in mind the adverse effects it might
have on the rights of creditors and the heirs alike.
o There are indications that the fruits and cash amounts ordered to be partially distributed
would be in excess of the distributees’ full inheritance from the estate.
▪ The inventory as filed does not embody any deductions for expenses such as
funeral charges, inheritance taxes, expenses for administration or an estimate of
the probable debts of the estate.
▪ Beside the appellant, there are about 8 others claiming to be lawful heirs and
seeking shares in the estate.
o Note also that the Medinas, being brothers and sisters of the deceased, are not entitled to
allowances for support under the ROC that would be deducted from their respective
shares.
● No bond was fixed by the court as a condition precedent to the partial distribution it
ordered.
o Rule 91, Sec. 1 of the ROC provides that “[n]o distribution shall be allowed until the
payment of the obligations above mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the
distributees or any of them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for
the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs."
o While the wording of the appealed order seems to indicate that it was rendered with the
conformity of the heirs, there is reason to believe that it was just a mistaken
impression on the part of the court. Gatmaitan had filed an MFR, stating that he never
agreed to the partial distribution of the estate in the manner ordained in the appealed order.
▪ Although said motion was denied for lack of merit, the court did not categorically
deny Gatmaitan’s imputation. There is plausibility in Gatmaitan’s statement that the
agreement referred to in the order was actually one between the appellees among
themselves.
o Furthermore, the bond required by the Rules is both for the protection of the heirs then
appearing and for the benefit of creditors and subsequent claimants who have not agreed
to the advances.

2. W/N the Order is merely interlocutory and therefore not appealable—YES, BUT OBJECTION
DEEMED WAIVED.
● When the objection is founded on the ground that the order appealed from is interlocutory, but the
appellee, before making such objection, has allowed the record on appeal to be approved and
printed, and has allowed the appellant to print his brief, such objection is too late and is deemed
waived.

3. W/N this appeal was prematurely taken in that Gatmaitan has not as yet formally objected to the
proffered bond as mentioned in an alleged order of the court—NO.
● The tenor of the alleged order indicates that the belated offer to file a bond amounted to no more
than an attempt of appellees to settle the particular issue between the parties that was rejected
by Gatmaitan.
o That the record on appeal was approved much later and yet without written opposition
required, notwithstanding the length of time that has elapsed, and the absence of proof
that the bond offered was ever filed and approved by the Court, fortify this conclusion.
o Since the purpose of the bond required by Rule 91, Sec. 1, par. 2 is to protect not only the
appellant but also the creditors and subsequent claimants to the estate, in order that they
may not be prejudiced by the partial distribution, the amount of the bond could not be fixed
without hearing such interested parties, and there is no showing that they were consulted.
o Hence, the bond offered could not affect the merits of this appeal, although the lower court
is not precluded from approving a new bond.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
RULING:

3
SpecPro Digest by M. Dizon
Rule 90 – Distribution and Partition of the Estate
Order of partial distribution appealed from is SET ASIDE, without prejudice to the issue of another order
after strict compliance with the ROC. Records are remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––