5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

VOL. 10, MARCH 31, 1964 471

Habaña vs. Imbo

Nos. L-15598 & L-15726. March 31, 1964.

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF

THE DECEASED MARIA PASTOR DE TEVES, and
PEDRO TEVES, petitioners, TESTATE ESTATE OF THE
DECEASED PEDRO TEVES, and MARIANO TEVES,
executor-petitioners, CONRADO HABAÑA and ROSARIO
HABAÑA, petitioners-appellants, vs. JOSE T. IMBO,
administrator, CONCEPCION TEVES, co-administratrix
of PEDRO TEVES and MARIA PASTOR, ETC., ET AL.,
respondents-appellees.

Settlement of estate of deceased persons; Sale by heir of part

of her share before approval of partition valid.—An heir can
validly sell lots forming part of her share of the estate of

472

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Habaña vs. Imbo

the deceased, even before the approval of the proposed partition

of the properties, especially when, as in the present case, the sale
has been expressly recognized by herself and her coheirs.
Same; Same; Payments of obligations of estate not -to be
made from portion of an heir's share already sold.—Where
certain lots forming part of the share of an heir had already been
sold by said heir, the payment of the remaining obligations of the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

estate should not be taken from said lots, especially where it

appears that said heir had already paid her share of said
obligations in full. At most, a notation of a lien in favor of the
estate may be made on the certificates of title to said lots to
guarantee that all the obligations of the estate will be met,
especially where it also appears that said heir still has other
properties which can be sold by the executor.

APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of

Negros Oriental. Santos, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

          Medina, Medina & Associates for petitioners-
appellants.
          Pedro Teves and Tugade & Florendo for
respondentsappellees.

PAREDES, J.:

Pedro Teves and Maria Pastor were husband and wife,

residing in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental. Maria
Pastor died on February 22, 1937, and was survived by her
husband and three children, named Concepcion Teves, of
age; Jose Teves (now deceased), who left no legitimate
heirs (except his father and a natural child); and Asuncion
Teves, also deceased, who was survived by her husband
Luciano Imbo and her children named Jesusa, 24; Jose, 23;
Maria, 22; Remedios; 21; Corazon, 17; Mariano, 14; and
Luciano, Jr., 13.
On December 12, 1949, Pedro Teves applied for letters
of Administration in the CFI of Negros Oriental, Sp. Proc.
No. 675, and was appointed administrator of the estate of
his deceased wife Maria Pastor on May 9, 1951. On June 2,
1951, Concepcion Teves was appointed as co-
administratrix of the estate.
On December 15, 1954, Pedro Teves died, leaving a will
and testament, which was presented to the same Court for
probate on January 8, 1955, in Sp. Proc. No. 1010 of said
Court. The court on February 25, 1955, allowed the said

473

VOL. 10, MARCH 31, 1964 473

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

Habaña vs. Imbo

will and admitted the same to probate. On January 26,

1955, Dr. Jose T. Imbo was appointed as co-administrator
of the estate in Sp. Proceeding No. 675, in place of the
deceased Pedro Teves and Dr. Imbo, qualified as such
administrator on January 28, 1955. Mariano Teves, named
executor of the will of Pedro Teves was, on February 24.
1955, appointed by the Court as such, with a will annexed
in Sp. Proc. No. 1010. The properties of Maria Pastor
inventoried under Sp. Proc. No. 675, and the properties of
Pedro Teves inventoried under Sp. Proc. No. 1010, are the
same conjugal properties of the deceased spouses.
The last will and testament of the late Pedro Teves,
partitioned and divided most of the real properties of the
deceased among the heirs (Pars. X to XVII of the Will).
And among the adjudications in the Will, were the ones
made in favor of Concepcion Teves, to wit:

"XI — It is my wish to give as share of Concepcion Te-

ves, lots Nos. 6272 (No. 5) and 1932 (No. 2) both
large coconut plantations, situated near the land of
Ramon Amores."

With respect to this adjudication, Dr. Imbo and all the

heirs, on October 20, 1956, made a Joint Manifestation in
Court, of the following tenor:—

"5. That in view of the fact that the only properties of the
intestate Maria Pastor de Teves now remaining and the testate
Pedro Teves are their conjugal and undivided properties and in
view of the further fact that the legal heirs of the said intestates
are in conformity with the disposition of the will of the said
testate, which also covers all said conjugal properties, thereby
including the intestate properties, it would be to the convenience
of all parties if the aforesaid two proceedings x x x be considered
either jointly or simultaneously."

In her capacity as heir and devisee of lots Nos. 1982 and

6272, Concepcion Teves, on June 28, 1955, sold, for valid
and sufficient consideration, the said lots, to the spouses
Dr. Conrado A. Habaña and Rosario Remollo. On August
10, 1956, Concepcion filed a motion asking that the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

executor be required to sell a part of the estate, for the

purpose of finally liquidating and settling the estate in
accordance with previous orders of the Court. On
September 1, 1956, the executor and other heirs filed an
opposition which partly reads as follows:

474

474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Habaña vs. Imbo

"2. That the disposal of the properties of the deceased is not

reasonable inasmuch as said properties have already been
adjudicated to the respective heirs of the deceased by virtue of a
Will and a disposal of any of the properties aforementioned would
be prejudicial to the interest of the heir to whom said property
have been assigned";
"8. That the petitioner has lost all her rights and interest in
the estate of the deceased due to the fact that she has already
sold all her shares and participation in the properties of the
deceased without getting the approval of this Hon. Court nor give
notice to the herein executor."

On October 4, 1956, the Court granted the motion and

ordered the sale of "some of the properties mentioned in
the will, preferably those which are referred to in No.
XVIII, page 5 of the same, within sixty (60) days from date
of receipt by the executor of this Order". Paragraph XVIII
of the Will, referred to by the Court, reads as follows:

"There are some parcels of land which are not mentioned in this
will but it is my wish that these lands be divided in equal shares
by nine (9) children—these of my children by the first and second
wife."

On November 8, 1956, the executor in an ex-parte motion,

prayed for authority to sell lots 1932 and 6272, alleging,
inter alia: "5. That it would be to the best interest of all the
legal and testamentary heirs if the sale of the properties in
the next preceding paragraph (lots 1932 and 6272) were
the ones sold, because the legatee Concepcion Teves has
already disposed of her rights in the said premises". This

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

information, notwithstanding, on December 10, 1956, the

lower court, granted the motion and authorized the
executor to sell again the two lots, together with the
improvements thereon. On December 21, 1956 (10 days
later), the said lots were sold to Dr. Jose T. Imbo, the
Judicial Administrator. On the same day (Dec. 21, 1956),
the Court approved the sale, by merely printing the phrase
"granted as prayed for", with a rubber stamp, at the foot of
the motion's last page. It does not appear that notice
thereof was served to the parties.
On February 7, 1957, devisee-vendor Concepcion Teves
asked the Court to declare the sale to Dr. Imbo null and
void. On February 15, 1957, upon hearing of such sale, and
the approval of the Court, Dr. and Mrs. Habaña also
475

VOL. 10, MARCH 31, 1964 475

Habaña vs. Imbo

filed a motion in the consolidated Sp. Proceedings Nos. 675

and 1010, asking that the sale of lots Nos. 1932 and 6272
in favor of Dr. Imbo be declared null and void, on the
ground that such sale was made in bad faith, because the
purchaser knew that said lots were adjudicated by will to
Concepcion Teves as her share, with the conformity of all
the heirs, and the same were already sold to Dr. and Mrs.
Habaña, for valid and sufficient consideration. Oppositions
were filed by the other heirs and on August 30, 1957, the
lower court denied the said motion of Dr. and Mrs.
Habaña, stating that "the said two lots were sold to the
petitioners (Dr. & Mrs. Habaña) at the back of the Court,"
before the adjudication to the heirs of their respective
shares in the testate estate, were effected, and such act did
not give the said petitioners any personality to impugn or
seek the annulment of the sale of the two lots in question
which was known to the heirs. In said Order, the lower
Court considered the petition on February 7, 1957
withdrawn; denied the motion of Atty. P. R. Remollo and
ordered it stricken off the record.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

Dr. and Mrs. Conrado Habaña filed the corresponding

Record on Appeal and appeal bond. However, before these
were approved by the lower court, Dr. Imbo presented a
"motion to rescind sale", paragraph 6 of which recites:

"6. That it would be to the interest of all persons concerned,

therefore, if the sale of the above-mentioned Lots No. 1932 and
No. 6272 to the said Jose T. Imbo be rescinded, so that the said
appeal would be abandoned and so that the said lots would be
reverted to their original condition as part of the estates of the
deceased Pedro Teves and Maria Pastor de Teves."

Acting upon said motion, on November 7, 1957, the lower

court rescinded the sale of lots 1932 and 6272 to Dr. Imbo
and for that reason, the appeal of Dr. Habaña and his wife
was discontinued and the cash appeal bond was ordered
returned to them.
On March 19, 1958, barely four (4) months after said
rescission, the executor filed another motion, praying that
same lots 1932 and 6272 and all improvements thereon, be
sold again for the same price of P10,000.00. So, in April,
1958, the spouses Dr. and Mrs. Habaña again filed an op-

476

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Habaña vs. Imbo

position thereto, on the grounds that said lots 1932 and

6272 no longer belonged to the estate. This opposition was
supplemented with a petition that the oppositors be given
possession of said lots, subject only to a lien in favor of the
estate, for the payment of any unpaid obligation of the
estate, should other properties of the estate be insufficient
to pay all debts.
On October 21, 1958, Concepcion Teves, surprisingly
enough, filed a pleading styled "Conformidad", to the
motion to sell anew said lots, filed by the executor, for
which reason, on October 25, 1958, Dr. and Mrs. Habaña
presented a motion, praying that Concepcion Teves be
cited for contempt of Court for "double dealing" and that

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

the case be endorsed to the City Fiscal, for appropriate

action.
On January 7, 1959, the Court issued an Order (a)
overruling the opposition and motion of Dr. and Mrs.
Habaña, and disregarding the sale of lots 1932 and 6272,
executed by Concepcion Teves in favor of the appellants
herein and (b) granting the petition of the executor to sell
anew the said lots to any third person or persons, for a
price not lower than P10,000.00. Hence, this appeal
interposed by Dr. and Mrs. Conrado Habaña.
Appellants, in their brief, submit that the lower court
erred:

1) In not holding that Concepcion Teves could validly

sell her hereditary rights over lots 1932 and 6272
in question, in their favor, without prior approval
of the court;
2) In not holding that the executor and all the heirs of
Pedro Teves are precluded from assailing the
validity of the sale of said lots to appellants;
3) In not holding that the second petition to sell the
same lots was filed in bad faith in order to
circumvent the illegality of the previous sale
executed in favor of Dr. Jose T. Imbo, judicial
administrator, and
4) In ordering the sale of said two lots to pay debts of
the estate despite the fact that they had previously
been sold to them (appellants), and in not ordering
instead the sale of the undisposed and
unencumbered properties of the estate.

After a careful perusal of the facts as elicited from the

pleadings and documentary proofs before Us, for no
testimonial evidence was presented, we are of the
opinion that
477

VOL. 10, MARCH 31, 1964 477

Habaña vs. Imbo

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

the stand of the lower court and the appellees herein is

untenable.
The distribution made in the Will of Pedro Teves,
whereby, among others he said, it was his "wish to give as
share of Concepcion Teves lots Nos. 1932 (No. 2) and 6272
(No. 5), both large coconut plantations, situated near the
land of Ramon Amores", is in accordance with article 1080
of the Civil Code, which provides that "Should a person
make a partition of his estate by an act inter vivos, or by
will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does
not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs". There
was no showing that said distribution ever prejudiced the
legitime of the compulsory heirs herein, and as a matter of
fact all the heirs gave their express conformity to the said
distribution (see joint manifestation, supra). There was not
even a vague suggestion of unfairness with respect to the
disposition of the legitimes. Concepcion Teves by operation
of law, became the absolute owner of said lots because "A
partition legally made confers each heir the exclusive
ownership of the property adjudicated to him" (Article
1091, New Civil Code), from the death of her ancestors,
subject to rights and obligations of the latter, and, she can
not be deprived of her rights thereto except by the methods
provided for by law (Arts. 657, 659, and 661, Civ. Code).
Concepcion Teves could, as she did, sell the lots in question
as a part of her share of the estate of the deceased, even
before the approval of the proposed partition of the
properties, especially when, as in the present case, the sale
has been expressly recognized by herself and her co-heirs;
for "there is no provision of law which prohibits a co-heir
from selling to a stranger his share of an estate held in
common before partition of the property is approved by the
Court" (Cea v. C.A., G.R. No. L-1776, Oct. 27, 1949;
Beltran v. Doriano, 32 Phil. 66). An heir may also sell the
rights, interest or participation, which he has or might
have in the property under administration, or in custodia
legis (Jakosalem v. Rafols, 73 Phil. 628). The executor of
the will and all other heirs of the late Pedro Teves should
be precluded from questioning the validity of the sale of
the lots in question in favor of the appellants, Dr. and Mrs.
Habaña; rather, they should comply

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

478

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Habaña vs. Imbo

with the lawful provisions of the Will of the testator, for it

has been well provided that "should a person make a
partition of his estate by an act inter vivos or by will (as in
this case), such partition shall be respected, in so far as it
does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs"
(Art. 1080, Civ. Code).
But the appellees allege that other properties were not
sufficient to pay the debts of the estate, and, therefore, it
was necessary for the administrator to retain these two
lots (sec. 3, Rule 85). The Executor informed the Court on
June 9, 1955, that the total obligation of the estate was
P9,976.00 and on August 10, 1956, Concepcion Teves told
the court that out of this amount, only P5,000.00 remained
unpaid, which was apportioned among the heirs and that
her share was paid by her in full. The Executor also
informed the Court on December 21, 1956 that the
obligation of the estate to the Philippine National Bank
was paid and that the claim of Eng Suy Huat & Co. in the
sum of P3.186.40 was left unpaid. Concepcion Teves can
well be considered free from the obligation of the estate,
and that lots 1932 and 6272 were also free, and could be
sold, as they were sold, to any party "without any strings
attached". However, should there be any doubt as to the
full payment of the obligations of the estate, particularly
the share of Concepcion Teves, who, according to
unrebutted disclosure in the records, had paid her share,
or as to the sufficiency of the remaining properties to pay
all the obligations of the estate (which was not the case), a
notation of a lien in favor of the estate, may/can be made
on the T.C.T. of said Lots Nos. 1932 and 6272. It appears
that appellants, without renouncing any of their rights
granted by law, would be willing to allow such notation, to
guarantee that all the obligations of the estate, will be
met, and thus expedite the delivery of said lots to them.
We are of the opinion that such procedure would not

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

violate the rights of the parties concerned, in the present

case.
It may be observed in passing, that the second petition
to sell lots 1932 and 6272, was characterized with bad
faith, and made to circumvent the illegality of the previous
sale executed to Dr. Imbo, the judicial administrator. Dr.
Imbo
479

VOL. 10, MARCH 31, 1964 479

Habaña vs. Imbo

knew fully well that said lots were adjudicated by will to

Concepcion Teves, to which adjudication he had given his
conformity and that the said Concepcion had already
disposed of her rights thereon. As judicial co-administrator
of the estate (Sp. Proc. No. 675), Dr. Imbo was aware of
these facts, but without apprising the Court about the
status of these lots, had bought them, thereby causing
prejudice upon the first irst purchasers-appellants Dr. and
Mrs. Habaña (Art. 1491, Civ. Code). And the rescission of
alleged sale made to him, was tinged with even intenser
color of bad faith, when he, as co-administrator, hastened
to ask for such rescission so that the appeal of the
appellants against the order given to sell again the said
lots would be abandoned, and the same reverted to their
original condition. Lulled by a feeling of false security
appellants abandoned the appeal, only to be harassed
again four (4) months later, with a petition of the executor
and the heirs, Dr. Imbo inclusive, to sell the same lots to
pay the obligations of the estate. The subsequent conduct
of Concepcion Teves, heretofore mentioned, simply reveals
a resolution on the part of the heirs, particularly
Concepcion Teves, to continue a questionable procedure to
sell her said lots, as many times as she could benefit by the
sale thereof. A double dealing should not be invoked as a
justification for any act, or serve as a mantle of protection
for any one.
As heretofore adverted to, the executor was ordered to
sell the properties mentioned in paragraph XVIII of the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

Will (supra). It was the duty of the executor to sell

properties belonging to the estate which had not been
disposed of by the respective heirs. It is unfair, to say the
least, to let Concepcion Teves shoulder the whole burden
alone and pay more than her true and actual share in the
obligations of the estate, which she claims to have been
already paid, before she made a volte face. If she had not
paid her share, she still has other properties which can be
sold by the executor, such as the properties mentioned
under paragraphs XVIII, XIV, XV and XVII of the Will.
There was no justification for choosing the particular lots
1932 and 6272, which are now the subject of a litigation, to
be sold. It seems to be a sound principle to follow that if
there is need to sell properties of an heir to pay debts,
480

480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bumanglag vs. Baraoidan

the properties still belonging to such heir should be sold

first.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered reversing the
Order of the Court, dated January 7, 1959, authorizing the
executor to enter into a contract to sell anew lots 1932 and
6272, and remanding the case to the Court of origin for
further proceedings, with instructions to sell other
undisposed or unencumbered properties of the estate, or
the undisposed or unencumbered properties of any of the
heirs, should there be any obligation of the estate will
unpaid, in conformity with law as in such cases provided,
reserving the right, if any, upon any authorized party to
question the validity of the sale made by Concepcion Teves
to appellants herein, in the proper Court. Costs against the
appellees.

     Bengzon, C.J. Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes,

J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ ,
concur.
     Padilla, J., took no part.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
5/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 010

Order reversed and case remanded to court of origin for

their proceedings.

_____________

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001723cc88a54574093ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12