Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1927 > March 1927 Decisions > G.R. No. 26505 March 23, 1927 - SERAFIN OROZCO v. ALBINA GARCIA

050 Phil 149:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 26505. March 23, 1927.]

In re intestate estate of Epifanio Orozco, deceased. SERAFIN OROZCO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ALBINA GARCIA, opponent-appellant.

Leoncio Imperial and Quintin Paredes for Appellant.

Sabido & Ribaya for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. HEREDITARY PROPERTY; EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION; ADMINISTRATION. — Under section 59 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whenever all the heirs of a person who died intestate are of lawful age and legal capacity, and there are no debts due from the estate, or all the debts have been paid, the heirs may by agreement duly executed in writing by all of them, and not otherwise, apportion and divide the estate among themselves, as they may see fit, without court proceedings. But there is nothing in this section which prohibits said heirs from instituting special proceedings for the administration of the intestate estate if they cannot agree on the special partition and extrajudicial apportionment of the same.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — "It is not a principle authorized by law that heirs of legal age may not, as alleged by the appellant, demand the division of a real property, left them by their predecessor in interest and held by a coheir, without first initiating special intestate proceedings during which a judicial administrator is to be appointed, who alone is vested with the personality to claim the property that belongs to the succession. On the contrary, such heirs are expressly authorized to do so, unless, for the reason of there being unpaid debts, judicial intervention becomes necessary, which was not alleged as a special defense in this suit." (Castillo v. Castillo and Quizon, 23 Phil., 364.)


D E C I S I O N


VILLAMOR, J.:


On January 16, 1926, Serafin Orozco filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Albay, praying that he be appointed special administrator of the estate of the deceased Epifanio Orozco pending the appointment of a regular administrator, upon the ground that said Epifanio Orozco died in August, 1917, in the municipality of Guinobatan, Albay, leaving real property to the value of P15,000 more or less; that the nearest relatives of said deceased are the applicant, Serafin Orozco, Carmen, Mercedes and Arsenio Orozco, all natural children duly recognized and declared as such by the said court in civil case No. 474, and the widow of the deceased Epifanio Orozco named Albina Garcia, with whom the said deceased had no descendant; that the deceased Epifanio Orozco had not executed any will, and since his death his property has been in the possession of his widow, Albina Garcia, who refuses to deliver to the petitioner and his brothers and sisters their respective shares, and that the widow Albina Garcia and the herein petitioner and his brothers and sisters have conflicting interests.

Albina Garcia, widow of Orozco, objected to said petition and the court, by an order of February 13, 1926, appointed her administratrix of the property left by said deceased Epifanio Orozco, upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P2,000 with solvent sureties.

Such is the order appealed from.

Counsel for the appellant assigns the following alleged errors as committed by the lower court: (1) In finding that the conjugal property was acquired during the marriage of the deceased Epifanio Orozco with Albina Garcia; (2) in appointing an administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Epifanio Orozco, that is, of the property left by him; and (3) in not requiring the petitioner to pay the fees and expenses incurred in this special proceeding.

The principal ground of the opposition is that the heirs being of legal age, and there being no proof that there is any valid and effective credit against the deceased, no legal reason exists for the court to appoint an administrator, as prayed for in the petition, citing in support of this contention the doctrine enunciated in the cases of Ilustre v. Alaras Frondosa (17 Phil., 321); Bondad v. Bondad (34 Phil., 232); Baldemor v. Malangyaon (34 Phil., 367).

It is true that, under section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whenever all the heirs of a person who died intestate are of lawful age and legal capacity, and there are no debts due from the estate, or all the debts have been paid, the heirs may, by agreement duly executed in writing by all of them, and not otherwise, apportion and divide the estate among themselves, as they may see fit, without court proceedings. But there is nothing in this section which prohibits said heirs from instituting special proceedings for the administration of the intestate estate if they cannot agree on the extrajudicial partition and apportionment of the same. In the case of Castillo v. Castillo and Quizon (23 Phil., 364)j this court said that: "It is not a principle authorized by law that heirs of legal age may not, as alleged by the appellant, demand the division of a real property, left them by their predecessor in interest and held by a coheir, without first initiating special intestate proceedings during which a judicial administrator is to be appointed, who alone is vested with the personality to claim the property that belongs to the succession. On the contrary, such heirs are expressly authorized to do so, unless, for the reason of there being unpaid debts, judicial intervention be- comes necessary, which was not alleged as a special defense in this suit."cralaw virtua1aw library

Granted that the appellant is in possession of the property left by the deceased father of the petitioner, and there being no agreement between all the heirs of legal age for the extrajudicial partition of the estate, the objection of the appellant based upon the ground that no indebtedness exists and that more than eight years had already elapsed from the death of the deceased Epifanio S. Orozco to the filing of the petition of the appellees, is untenable.

Wherefore, the order appealed from must be, as it is hereby, affirmed, without any special finding as to costs, and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1927 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 26095 March 2, 1927 - RAFAEL SANTOS v. PEDRO DE LA VIÑA

    050 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 26481 March 2, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO GONZALEZ

    050 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 26498 March 2, 1927 - C. N. HODGES v. TREASURER OF THE PHIL.

    050 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 25577 March 3, 1927 - AFIFE ABDO CHEYBAN GORAYEB v. NADJIB TANNUS HASHIM

    050 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 26135 March 3, 1927 - PETRONILO GUMBAN v. INOCENCIA GORECHO

    050 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. 26335 March 3, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE BANDE

    050 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 26435 March 4, 1927 - JUANARIA FRANClSCO v. LOPE TAYAO

    050 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 26550 March 4, 1927 - SALVADOR K. DEMETERIO v. HONORIO LOPEZ

    050 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 27019 March 4, 1927 - CLEMENCIA GRAÑO v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    050 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. 26013 March 5, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERPETUA TRINIDAD

    050 Phil 65

  • G.R. Nos. 26216 & 26217 March 6, 1927 - MONICO PUENTEBELLA v. NEGROS COAL CO.

    050 Phil 69

  • G.R. Nos. 26304 & 26306 March 6, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON URBANO

    050 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 25903 March 10, 1927 - S. E. DIAZ v. FELISA NUÑEZ Vda. de CARDENAS

    050 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 26495 March 10, 1927 - SEVERINA CASAÑAS v. TELESFORA ROSELLO

    050 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 27117 March 11, 1927 - BENIGNO MADALANG v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ROMBLON

    050 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 26201 March 14, 1927 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. TEODORO DAVID

    050 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 26258 March 14, 1927 - BENEDICTA SANTA JUANA v. LUCIA DEL ROSARIO

    050 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 26556 March 16, 1927 - LA ORDEN DE DOMINICOS O PP v. GABRIELA ANDREA DE COSTER Y ROXAS

    050 Phil 115

  • G.R. No. 25842 March 18, 1927 - MOORE & SONS MERCANTILE CO. v. CARMEN WAGNER

    050 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 26247 March 18, 1927 - JUAN YSMAEL & CO. v. NAGEEB T. HASHIM

    050 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 26551 March 18, 1927 - MARIA DE OCAMPO v. INSULAR TREASURER OF THE PHIL.

    050 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 26658 March 18, 1927 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. SANTIAGO ARTIAGA

    050 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 26275 March 23, 1927 - ANANIAS VICENCIO v. JOSE DE BORJA

    050 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 26505 March 23, 1927 - SERAFIN OROZCO v. ALBINA GARCIA

    050 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 27295 March 23, 1927 - LEONCIO ESPINO v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA

    050 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 26293 March 24, 1927 - TIMOTEO UNSON v. URQUIJO

    050 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 26593 March 24, 1927 - MARIANO VELAYO v. CLARO PATRICIO

    050 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 25587 March 30, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN CHAN LIN WAT

    050 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 26183 March 30, 1927 - ISABELO DIZON v. ANASTASIO LACAP., ET., AL.

    050 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. 26386 March 30, 1927 - MOODY, ARONSON & CO. v. HOTEL BILBAO

    050 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. 26537 March 30, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO SANTOS

    050 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 26538 March 30, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO SORIANO

    050 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 26539 March 30, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO SORIANO

    050 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 26886 March 30, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVESTRE LORREDO

    050 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 26243 March 31, 1927 - JOSE GEUKEKO v. ANDRES PASCUAL

    050 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 26482 March 31, 1927 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE v. FINDLAY MILLAR TIMBER CO.

    050 Phil 227