G.R. No.

199885

JESUSA DUJALI BUOT, Petitioner

DECISION

JARDELEZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari1under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner Jesusa Dujali Buot (Buot) challenged the
Orders of Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Panabo City, dated September 19, 2011 2 and December 8, 2011,3 dismissing
her petition and denying her subsequent motion for reconsideration, respectively.

Buot filed before the RTC a petition4 for letters of administration of the estate of deceased Gregorio Dujali (Gregorio). In her petition,
Buot alleged that she was a surviving heir, along with Roque Dujali, Constancia Dujali-Tiongson, Concepcion Dujali-Satiembre,
Marilou Sales-Dujali, Marietonete Dujali, Georgeton Dujali, Jr. and Geomar Dujali, of Gregorio who died intestate. 5 Buot annexed6 to
her petition a list of Gregorio's properties that are allegedly publicly known. She claimed that since Gregorio's death, there had been
no effort to settle his estate. Roque Dujali (Dujali) purportedly continued to manage and control the properties to the exclusion of all
the other heirs. Buot further alleged that Dujali for no justifiable reason denied her request to settle the estate. 7 Thus, Buot asked
that: (1) an administrator be appointed to preserve Gregorio's estate; (2) a final inventory of the properties be made; (3) the heirs be
established; and (4) the net estate be ordered distributed in accordance with law among the legal heirs. 8

Dujali filed an opposition with motion to dismiss, 9 arguing that Buot had no legal capacity to institute the proceedings. He asserted
that despite Buot's claim that she was Gregorio's child with his first wife Sitjar Escalona, she failed to attach any document, such as
a certificate of live birth or a marriage certificate, to prove her filiation. Dujali, on the other hand, attached a certificate of marriage
between Gregorio and his mother Yolanda Rasay. This certificate also indicated that Gregorio had never been previously married to
a certain Sitjar Escalona. Thus, as Buot failed to prove that she is an heir, Dujali prayed that her petition be dismissed outright.

Buot filed her comment10 to Dujali's opposition with motion to dismiss. She argued that under the Rules of Court, only ultimate facts
should be included in an initiatory pleading. The marriage certificate and certificate of live birth which Dujali demands are evidentiary
matters that ought to be tackled during trial. Nevertheless, to answer Dujali's allegations, Buot attached to her comment a copy of
the necrological services program11 where she was listed as one of Gregorio's heirs, a certification 12 from the municipal mayor that
she is Gregorio's child, and a copy of the Amended Extrajudicial Settlement 13 dated July 4, 2001 which includes both Buot and Dujali
as Gregorio's heirs. Notably, this Amended Extrajudicial Settlement pertained to parcels of land not included in the list of properties
annexed in Buot's petition.

On May 3, 2011, the RTC denied Dujali's motion to dismiss. It agreed with Buot that the issues raised by Dujali are evidentiary
matters that should be addressed during trial.14

Dujali filed a motion for reconsideration. 15 He argued that under the Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence, a party's lack of
legal capacity to sue should be raised in a motion to dismiss. Further, he took issue with the existence of the Amended Extrajudicial
Settlement. According to him, when an estate has no debts, recourse to administration proceedings is allowed only when there are
good and compelling reasons. Where an action for partition (whether in or out of court) is possible, the estate should not be
burdened with an administration proceeding.

The RTC, in its Order dated September 19, 2011, granted Dujali's motion for reconsideration. It held that under the law, there are
only two exceptions to the requirement that the settlement of a deceased's estate should be judicially administered--extrajudicial
settlement and summary settlement of an estate of small value. 16 According to the RTC, in the case of Buot's petition, administration
has been barred by the fact that Gregorio's estate has already been settled extrajudicially as evidenced by the Amended
Extrajudicial Settlement. It also noted that Gregorio had no creditors since Buot failed to allege it in her petition. 17 Since recourse to
judicial administration of an estate that has no debt is allowed only when there are good reasons for not resorting to extrajudicial
settlement or action for partition, the RTC dismissed Buot's petition. Buot filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied in
its Order dated December 8, 2011. According to the RTC, not only was Buot's motion a second motion for reconsideration prohibited
under the Rules, there was also no sufficient reason to reverse its earlier dismissal of the petition. 18

Buot filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging the RTC's Orders on pure questions of
law. In her petition, Buot argues that her motion for reconsideration is not a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. Section 2
of Rule 52 of the Rules of Court states that a prohibited second motion for reconsideration is one filed by the  same party. In this
case, Buot's motion for reconsideration was her first, since the motion for reconsideration subject of the Order dated September 19,
2011 was filed by Dujali. She also argued that the Amended Extra judicial Settlement did not cover all of Gregorio's properties. 19

Further, Buot maintains that heirs are not precluded from instituting a petition for administration if they do not, for good reason, wish
to pursue an ordinary action for partition. In her case, she claims that there are good reasons justifying her recourse to
administration proceedings: (1) the Amended Extrajudicial Settlement did not cover the entire estate; (2) there has been no effort to
partition the property; (3) Dujali seeks to challenge Buot' s status as an heir; (4) other heirs have been deprived of the properties of
the estate; and (5) other heirs, particularly Constancia Dujali and Marilou Dujali, have already manifested that they are amenable to
the appointment of an administrator.20

In his comment,21 Dujali argues that Buot is not an interested person allowed to file a petition for administration of the estate. While
she claims to be Gregorio's heir, public documents, such as Buot's certificate of live birth and the certificate of marriage between
Gregorio and Yolanda Rasay, reveal otherwise. Dujali also attached to his comment certain documents that appear to show that
there has been an extra judicial settlement of some of the prope1iies of the estate and that Buot has already received her share from
the proceeds of the sale of these properties by the true heirs. 22 Further, he explains that Buot was only allowed to participate in the
Amended Extrajudicial Settlement by Gregorio's legitimate heirs out of humanitarian considerations, not because she is a true heir.
All these, Dujali argues, clearly indicate that there is no good and compelling reason to grant Buot's petition for administration. 23

In her reply,24 Buot contends that the issue of whether she is a person interested in the estate is a matter that should be raised
during the trial by the RTC of her petition for administration.

We deny the petition.

First, we must emphasize that this is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This recourse to the
Court covers only a review of questions of law. In this case, the question of law presented before us is whether the RTC properly
dismissed the petition for administration on the ground that there has already been an extrajudicial settlement of certain properties of
the estate. An additional question of procedure raised here is whether the RTC was correct in holding that Buot's motion for
reconsideration should be denied as it is a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.

All other issues raised in the pleadings before us are questions of fact that we cannot resolve at this time. As we shall shortly explain
in this Decision, these questions of fact ought to be resolved by a trial court in the appropriate proceeding.

We will first rule on the procedural issue raised in the petition. In its Order dated September 19, 2011, the RTC held that Buot's
motion for reconsideration is a second motion for reconsideration prohibited under the Rules of Court. Thus, the motion was denied.
We reviewed the motions filed by the parties before the RTC and rule that the RTC erred in its finding.

When Buot filed her petition for administration, Dujali filed an opposition with a motion to dismiss.  When the R TC denied his motion
1âwphi1

to dismiss, Dujali filed a motion for reconsideration. This led to the RTC's issuance of the Order of September 19, 2011 granting
Dujali's motion for reconsideration and holding that Buot's petition for administration should be dismissed. It was only at this point
that Buot filed, for the first time, a motion seeking for reconsideration of the Order which declared the dismissal of her petition for
administration. Clearly, this is not the motion for reconsideration contemplated in Section 2 of Rule 52 of the Rules of Court which
states:

Sec. 2. Second motion for reconsideration. - No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same
party shall be entertained.

Section 2 of Rule 52 is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. What it prohibits is a second motion for reconsideration filed by
the same party involving the same judgment or final resolution. In the present case, Buot's motion for reconsideration was only her
first motion challenging the Order dismissing her petition for administration of Gregorio's estate. The RTC clearly erred in denying
her motion on the ground that it is a second motion for reconsideration prohibited under the Rules.

Nevertheless, we rule that the RTC properly ordered the dismissal of Buot's petition for administration.

When a person dies intestate, his or her estate may generally be subject to judicial administration proceedings. 25 There are,
however, several exceptions. One such exception is provided for in Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. This Section states:

Sec. I . Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. - If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or
the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without
securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the
office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir, he
may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds. The parties to an
extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the sole heir who
adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the
filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for 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

According to this provision, 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. The heirs may do so extrajudicially through a public instrument filed in the office of
the Register of Deeds. In case of disagreement, they also have the option to file an action for partition.

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. In Rodriguez, et al. v. Tan, etc. and Rodriguez,26we said:

[S]ection 1 [of Rule 74] does not preclude the heirs from instituting administration proceedings, even if the estate has no debts or
obligation, if they do not desire to resort for good reasons to an ordinary action of partition. While section 1 allows the heirs to divide
the estate among themselves as they may see fit, or to resort to an ordinary action of partition, it does not compel them to do so if
they have good reasons to take a different course of action. Said section is not mandatory or compulsory as may be gleaned from
the use made therein of the word may. If the intention were otherwise the framer of the rule would have employed the word shall as
was done in other provisions that are mandatory in character.x x x27 (Italics in the original.)