Garcia- Quiazon v Belen HELD:

FACTS: Eliseo died intestate, Elise filed a Petition for Letters of Administration 1. Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the petition for letters of
and claimed that she is the natural child of Eliseo having been conceived and administration of the estate of a decedent should be filed in the RTC of the
born at the time when her parents were both capacitated to marry each province where the decedent resides at the time of his death.
other. Insisting on the legal capacity of Eliseo and Lourdes to marry, Elise
impugned the validity of Eliseo’s marriage to Amelia by claiming that it was The word “resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense,
bigamous for having been contracted during the subsistence of the latter’s meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual
marriage with one Filipito Sandico. To prove her filiation to the decedent, residence or place of abode. As thus defined, "residence," in the context of
Elise, among others, attached to the Petition for Letters of Administration her venue provisions, means nothing more than a person’s actual residence or
Certificate of Live Birth signed by Eliseo as her father. place of abode, provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.

Claiming that the venue of the petition was improperly laid, Amelia, wife of While the recitals in death certificates can be considered proofs of a
the decedent, opposed the issuance of the letters of administration by filing decedent’s residence at the time of his death, the contents thereof, however,
an Opposition/Motion to Dismiss. The petitioners asserted that as shown by is not binding on the courts. Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found
his Death Certificate, Eliseo was a resident of Capas, Tarlac and not of Las that Eliseo had been living with Lourdes, deporting themselves as husband
Piñas City, at the time of his death. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 73 of the and wife, from 1972 up tot he time of his death in 1995. This finding is
Revised Rules of Court, the petition for settlement of consistent with the fact that in 1985,Eliseo filed an action for judicial partition
decedent’s estate should have been filed in Capas, Tarlac and not in Las Piñas of properties against Amelia, on the ground that their marriage is void for
City. Inaddition to their claim of improper venue, the petitioners averred that being bigamous. It disproves rather than supports petitioners’ submission
there are no factual and legal bases for Elise to be appointed administratix of that the lower courts’ findings arose from an erroneous appreciation of the
Eliseo’s estate. evidence on record.

The lower court ruled that the venue of the petition was properly laid in Las 2. Section 2 of Rule 79 provides that a petition for Letters of Administration
Piñas City and directed the issuance of Letters of Administration to Elise upon must be filed by an interested person An "interested party," in estate
posting the necessary bond. On appeal, the decision of the trial court was proceedings, is one who would be benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or
affirmed in toto. one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. Also, in estate
proceedings, the phrase "next of kin" refers to those whose relationship with
ISSUES: the decedent is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as
1. Whether or not the residence of the decedent as indicated in the distributees. In the instant case, Elise, as a compulsory heir who stands to be
death certificate should be taken into account for purposes of benefited by the distribution of Eliseo’s estate, is deemed to be an interested
determining the venue for the probate of the will. party. With the overwhelming evidence on record produced by Elise to prove
her filiation to Eliseo, the petitioners’ pounding on her lack of interest in the
2. Whether or not the natural child of the decedent may be appointed administration of the decedent’s estate, is just a desperate attempt to sway
as an administrator. this Court to reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals

RULE 69: PARTITION 1 of 5

VICTORIA BRINGAS PEREIRA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF HELD:
APPEALS and RITA PEREIRA NAGAC, respondents. 1. GENERAL RULE: when a person dies leaving property, the same
[G.R. No. L-81147 June 20, 1989, GANCAYCO, J.:] should be judicially administered and the competent court should
appoint a qualified administrator
FACTS: a. EXCEPTION: when all the heirs are of lawful age and there
1. Andres de Guzman Pereira, an employee of the Philippine Air Lines, are no debts due from the estate, they may agree in writing
passed away without a will to partition the property without instituting the judicial
a. survived by his legitimate spouse of ten months, the herein administration or applying for the appointment of an
petitioner Victoria Bringas Pereira, and his sister Rita Pereira administrator.
Nagac, the herein private respondent. 2. Where partition is possible, either in or out of court, the estate should
2. Nagac filed before RTC for the issuance of letters of administration in not be burdened with an administration proceeding without good
her favor pertaining to the estate of the deceased Andres de Guzman and compelling reasons.
Pereira. a. It has been uniformly held that in such case the judicial
a. REASONS: administration and the appointment of an administrator are
i. he and Victoria Bringas Pereira are the only surviving heirs superfluous and unnecessary proceedings .
of the deceased 3. what constitutes "good reason" to warrant a judicial administration
ii. deceased left no will of the estate of a deceased when the heirs are all of legal age and
iii. there are no creditors of the deceased there are no creditors will depend on the circumstances of each case.
iv. deceased left several properties a. questions as to what property belonged to the deceased (and
v. the spouse of the deceased had been working in London therefore to the heirs) may properly be ventilated in the
as an auxiliary nurse and as such one-half of her salary partition proceedings, especially where such property is in
forms part of the estate of the deceased. the hands of one heir.
b. Victoria opposed: there exists no estate of the deceased for b. merely to avoid a multiplicity of suits since the heir seeking
purposes of administration and praying in the alternative, such appointment wants to ask for the annulment of certain
that if an estate does exist, the letters of administration transfers of property, that same objective could be achieved
relating to the said estate be issued in her favor as the in an action for partition and the trial court is not justified in
surviving spouse. issuing letters of administration.
c. RULING: appointed Rita Pereira Nagac administratrix of the c. to have legal capacity to appear in the intestate proceedings
intestate estate
3. CA: appointed Rita Pereira Nagac administratrix of the intestate
estate

ISSUE: Is a judicial administration proceeding necessary when the decedent

dies intestate without leaving any debts?

RULE 69: PARTITION 2 of 5

SPOUSES MARIA BUTIONG and FRANCISCO VILLAFRIA, undated, the date of the acknowledgment therein was left blank, and the
substituted by DR. RUEL B. VILLAFRIA, petitioners, vs. MA .GRACIA RIÑ OZA typewritten name "Pedro Riñ oza, Husband" on the left side of the document
PLAZO and MA. FE RIÑ OZA ALARAS,respondents. Peralta, J: was not signed. The CA affirmed RTC’s decision.

Facts: Before the SC, petitioners contended that the RTC had no jurisdiction.
According to them, the allegations in the complaint filed by the respondents
Pedro L. Riñoza died intestate, leaving several heirs, including his children show that the cause of action is actually one for settlement of estate of
with his first wife, respondents Ma. Gracia R. Plazo and Ma. Fe Alaras, his decedent Pedro. Considering that settlement of estate is a special proceeding
second wife Benita Tenorio and other children, as well as several properties cognizable by a probate court of limited jurisdiction, while judicial partition
including a resort covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) No. 51354 with annulment of title and recovery of possession are ordinary civil actions
and No. 51355, each with an area of 351 square meters, and a family home, cognizable by a court of general jurisdiction, the trial court exceeded its
the land on which it stands is covered by TCT Nos. 40807 and 40808, both jurisdiction in entertaining the respondent’s complaint.
located in Nasugbu, Batangas.
Issue: WON the RTC had no jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint filed
Respondents Plazo filed an action for Judicial Partition with Annulment of is for the settlement of the estate of Pedro and not of Partition.
Title and Recovery of Possession dated September 15, 1993, on the ground
their co- heirs, Pedro's second wife, Benita Tenorio and other children, had Held: Yes. The RTC had jurisdiction.
sold Pedro’s resort and family home to petitioners, spouses Francisco Villafria
and Maria Butiong, who are now deceased and substituted by their son, Dr. Petitioner is mistaken. It is true that some of respondents' causes of action
Ruel B. Villafria, without their knowledge and consent. When confronted pertaining to the properties left behind by the decedent Pedro, his known
about the sale, Benita acknowledged the same, showing respondents a heirs, and the nature and extent of their interests thereon, may fall under an
document she believed evidenced receipt of her share in the sale, which, action for settlement of estate. However, a complete reading of the
however, did not refer to any sort of sale but to a previous loan obtained by complaint would readily show that, based on the nature of the suit, the
Pedro and Benita from a bank. allegations therein, and the reliefs prayed for, the action is clearly one for
judicial partition with annulment of title and recovery of possession.
Subsequently, respondents learned that on July 18, 1991, a notice of an extra-
judicial settlement of estate of their late father was published in a tabloid Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides:
called Balita. Because of this, they caused the annotation of their adverse Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. — A person
claims over the subject properties before the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as
and filed their complaint praying, among others, for the annulment of all provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and
documents conveying the subject properties to the petitioners and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of
certificates of title issued pursuant thereto. which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other
persons interested in the property.
RTC ruled in favor of the respondents due to the irregularities irregularities in
the documents of conveyance offered by petitioners as well as the Here, the complaint alleged: (1) that Pedro died intestate; (2) that
circumstances surrounding the execution of the same. Specifically, the Extra- respondents, together with their co-heirs, are all of legal age, with the
Judicial Settlement was notarized by a notary public who was not duly exception of one who is represented by a judicial representative duly
commissioned as such on the date it was executed. The Deed of Sale was authorized for the purpose; (3) that the heirs enumerated are the only known

RULE 69: PARTITION 3 of 5

heirs of Pedro; (4) that there is an account and description of all real pertained to parcels of land not included in the list of properties annexed in
properties left by Pedro; (5) that Pedro's estate has no known indebtedness; Buot's petition.
and (6) that respondents, as rightful heirs to the decedent's estate, pray for
the partition of the same in accordance with the laws of intestacy. It is clear, The RTC sided with Dujali. It held that under the law, there are only two
therefore, that based on the allegations of the complaint, the case is one for exceptions to the requirement that the settlement of a deceased's estate
judicial partition. That the complaint alleged causes of action identifying the should be judicially administered: (1) extrajudicial settlement and (2)
heirs of the decedent, properties of the estate, and their rights thereto, does summary settlement of an estate of small value. In this case, administration
not perforce make it an action for settlement of estate. has been barred by the fact that Gregorio's estate has already been settled
extrajudicially as evidenced by the Amended Extrajudicial Settlement. It also
JESUSA DUJALI BUOT, PETITIONER, -versus- ROQUE RASAY DUJALI, noted that Gregorio had no creditors since Buot failed to allege it in her
RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 199885, FIRST DIVISION, October 02, 2017, petition.
JARDELEZA, J.
ISSUE
When a person dies intestate, his or her estate may generally be subject to
judicial administration proceedings. The exception is when there already has Whether the RTC properly dismissed the petition on the ground that there
been (1) extrajudicial settlement and (2) summary settlement of an estate of has already been an extrajudicial settlement of certain properties of the
small value. Exception to the Exception: When there is a “good and estate
compelling” reason to still institute judicial administration proceedings.
RULING
FACTS
When a person dies intestate, his or her estate may generally be subject to
Jesusa Dujali Buot filed for administration of estate of deceased Gregorio judicial administration proceedings. The exception is provided in Section 1 of
Dujali, who died intestate. Buot alleged she was a surviving heir along with Rule 74 of ROC:
Roque Dujali, and other heirs. Buot asked that (1) an administrator be
appointed to preserve Gregorio's estate; (2) a final inventory of the Sec. I. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. - If the
properties be made; (3) the heirs be established; and (4) the net estate be decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the
ordered distributed in accordance with law among the legal heirs. minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly
authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of
Dujali opposed and asked for dismissal, arguing Buot had no legal capacity to administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by
institute the proceedings because she failed to attach any document, such as means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds,
a certificate of live birth or a marriage certificate, to prove her filiation. Buot and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of
argued only ultimate facts should be included in an initiatory pleading. The partition. If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the
marriage certificate and certificate of live birth which Dujali demands are entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register
evidentiary matters that ought to be tackled during trial.She attached a copy of deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public
of the necrological services program where she was listed as one of Gregorio's instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the sole
heirs, a certification from the municipal mayor that she is Gregorio's child, heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an
and a copy of the Amended Extrajudicial Settlement which includes both Buot affidavit shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to
and Dujali as Gregorio's heirs. Notably, this Amended Extrajudicial Settlement the filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for

RULE 69: PARTITION 4 of 5

 partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a bond
with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of
the personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties
concerned and conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that
may be filed under Section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the
decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of
administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent.

The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be

published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided
in the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be
binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no
notice thereof

When the deceased left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, the
heirs may divide the estate among themselves without judicial
administration.

Section 1 of Rule 74, however, does not prevent the heirs from instituting
administration proceedings if they have good reasons for choosing not to file
an action for partition. Since such proceedings are always "long," "costly,"
"superfluous and unnecessary,” resort to judicial administration of cases
falling under Section 1, Rule 74 appears to have become the exception rather
than the rule.

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. What constitutes good reason depends on the circumstances of each
case. Buot’s reasons do not qualify as good and compelling reason to submit
Gregorio’s estate to administration proceedings. That the extrajudicial
settlement in this case did not cover Gregorio's entire estate is not sufficient
reason to order the administration of the estate.

RULE 69: PARTITION 5 of 5