Malana V Tappa

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 154322 : August 22, 2006
EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA, Petitioner, v. CAROLINA VDA. DE

FIGURACION,* ELENA FIGURACION-ANCHETA,* HILARIA A. FIGURACION,
FELIPA FIGURACION-MANUEL, QUINTIN FIGURACION and MARY
FIGURACION-GINEZ, Respondents.
DECISION
FACTS
Spouses Leandro and respondent Carolina Figuracion (now both deceased) had six
children: petitioner and respondents Elena Figuracion-Ancheta (now deceased), Hilaria
Figuracion, Felipa Figuracion-Manuel, Quintin Figuracion and Mary Figuracion-Ginez.
On August 23, 1955, Leandro executed a deed of quitclaim over his real properties in
favor of his six children. When he died in 1958, he left behind two parcels of land: (1)
Lot 2299 of the Cadastral Survey of Urdaneta consisting of 7,547 square meters with
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 4221-P in the name of "Leandro Figuracion,
married to Carolina Adviento" and (2) Lot 705 of the Cadastral Survey of Urdaneta with
an area of 2,900 sq. m. with TCT No. 4220-P also in the name of "Leandro Figuracion,
married to Carolina Adviento." Leandro had inherited both lots from his deceased
parents,5 as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) Nos. 16731 and 16610,
respectively, issued by the Register of Deeds of the Province of Pangasinan.
Leandro sold a portion of Lot 2299 to Lazaro Adviento, as a result of which TCT No.
4221-P was cancelled and TCT No. 101331 was issued to "Lazaro Adviento, married to
Rosenda Sagueped" as owner of the 162 sq. m. and "Leandro Figuracion, married to
Carolina Adviento" as owner of 7,385 sq. m. This lot continued to be in the name of
Leandro in Tax Declaration No. 616 for the year 1985.
What gave rise to the complaint for partition, however, was a dispute between
petitioner and her sister, respondent Mary, over the eastern half of Lot 707 of the
Cadastral Survey of Urdaneta with an area of 3,164 sq. m.
Lot 707 belonged to Eulalio Adviento, as evidenced by OCT No. 15867 issued on
February 9, 1916. When Adviento died, his two daughters, Agripina Adviento (his
daughter by his first wife) and respondent Carolina (his daughter by his second wife),
succeeded him to it. On November 28, 1961, Agripina executed a quitclaim in favor of
petitioner over the one-half eastern portion of Lot 707. Agripina died on July 28, 1963,
single and without any issue. Before her half-sister's death, however, respondent
Carolina adjudicated unto herself, via affidavit under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, the
entire Lot 707 which she later sold to respondents Felipa and Hilaria. The latter two
immediately had OCT No. 15867 cancelled, on December 11, 1962. A new title, TCT No.
42244, was then issued in the names of Felipa and Hilaria for Lot 707.
In February 1971, petitioner and her family went to the United States where they
stayed for ten years. Returning in 1981,6 she built a house made of strong materials on
the eastern half-portion of Lot 707. She continued paying her share of the realty taxes
thereon.
It was sometime later that this dispute erupted. Petitioner sought the extrajudicial
partition of all properties held in common by her and respondents. On May 23, 1994,
petitioner filed a complaint in the RTC of Urdaneta City, Branch 49, for partition,
annulment of documents, reconveyance, quieting of title and damages against
respondents, praying, among others, for: (1) the partition of Lots 2299 and 705; (2)
the nullification of the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by respondent Carolina
over Lot 707, the deed of absolute sale in favor of respondents Felipa and Hilaria, and
TCT No. 42244; (3) a declaration that petitioner was the owner of one-half of Lot 707
and (4) damages. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. U-5826.
On the other hand, respondents took the position that Leandro's estate should first
undergo settlement proceedings before partition among the heirs could take place. And
they claimed that an accounting of expenses chargeable to the estate was necessary for
such settlement.
On June 26, 1997,7 the RTC8 rendered judgment nullifying Carolina's affidavit of self-

adjudication and deed of absolute sale of Lot 707. It also declared Lots 2299 and 705
as exclusive properties of Leandro Figuracion and therefore part of his estate. The RTC,
however, dismissed the complaint for partition, reconveyance and damages on the
ground that it could not grant the reliefs prayed for by petitioner without any (prior)
settlement proceedings wherein the transfer of title of the properties should first be
effected.
On appeal, the CA upheld the dismissal of petitioner's action for partition for being
premature. The CA reversed the decision, however, with respect to the nullification of
the self-adjudication and the deed of sale. Upholding the validity of the affidavit of self-
adjudication and deed of sale as to Carolina's one-half pro-indiviso share, it instead
partitioned Lot 707. Dissatisfied, respondents elevated the CA decision to this Court in
G.R. No. 151334, entitled Carolina vda. de Figuracion, et al. v. Emilia Figuracion-
Gerilla.9
The issue for our consideration is whether or not there needs to be a prior settlement of
Leandro's intestate estate (that is, an accounting of the income of Lots 2299 and 705,
the payment of expenses, liabilities and taxes, plus compliance with other legal
requirements, etc.) before the properties can be partitioned or distributed.
Respondents claim that: (1) the properties constituting Leandro's estate cannot be
partitioned before his estate is settled and (2) there should be an accounting before
anything else, considering that they (respondents) had to spend for the maintenance of
the deceased Leandro Figuracion and his wife in their final years, which support was
supposed to come from the income of the properties. Among other things, respondents
apparently wanted petitioner to share in the expenses incurred for the care of their
parents during the ten years she stayed in the United States, before she could get her
part of the estate while petitioner apparently wanted her gross share, without first
contributing to the expenses.
In any event, there appears to be a complication with respect to the partition of Lot
705. The records refer to a case entitled Figuracion, et al. v. Alejo currently pending in
the CA. The records, however, give no clue or information regarding what exactly this
case is all about. Whatever the issues may be, suffice it to say that partition is
premature when ownership of the lot is still in dispute.10
Petitioner faces a different problem with respect to Lot 2299. Section 1, Rule 69 of the
Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. - A person having the right
to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in
his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real
estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons
interested in the property.
The right to an inheritance is transmitted immediately to the heirs by operation of law,

at the moment of death of the decedent. There is no doubt that, as one of the heirs of
Leandro Figuracion, petitioner has a legal interest in Lot 2299. But can she compel
partition at this stage?
cralawlibrary
There are two ways by which partition can take place under Rule 69: by agreement
under Section 211 and through commissioners when such agreement cannot be reached,
under Sections 3 to 6.12
Neither method specifies a procedure for determining expenses chargeable to the

decedent's estate. While Section 8 of Rule 69 provides that there shall be an accounting
of the real property's income (rentals and profits) in the course of an action for
partition,13 there is no provision for the accounting of expenses for which property
belonging to the decedent's estate may be answerable, such as funeral expenses,
inheritance taxes and similar expenses enumerated under Section 1, Rule 90 of the
Rules of Court.
In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable to the

estate, partition is inappropriate. While petitioner points out that the estate is allegedly
without any debt and she and respondents are Leandro Figuracion's only legal heirs,
she does not dispute the finding of the CA that "certain expenses" including those
related to her father's final illness and burial have not been properly settled.14 Thus, the
heirs (petitioner and respondents) have to submit their father's estate to settlement
because the determination of these expenses cannot be done in an action for partition.
In estate settlement proceedings, there is a proper procedure for the accounting of all
expenses for which the estate must answer. If it is any consolation at all to petitioner,
the heirs or distributees of the properties may take possession thereof even before the
settlement of accounts, as long as they first file a bond conditioned on the payment of
the estate's obligations.15
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Court of Appeals' decision and

resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 58290 are AFFIRMED in so far as theissue of the partition
of Lots 2299 and 705 is concerned.
But with respect to Lot 707, we make no ruling on the validity of Carolina vda. de
Figuracion's affidavit of self-adjudication and deed of sale in favor of Felipa and Hilaria
Figuracion in view of the fact that Carolina vda. de Figuracion, et al. v. Emilia
Figuracion-Gerilla (G.R. No. 151334) is still pending in this Division.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Malana V Tappa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malana V Tappa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malana V Tappa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 154322 : August 22, 2006

EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA, Petitioner, v. CAROLINA VDA. DE

On June 26, 1997,7 the RTC8 rendered judgment nullifying Carolina's affidavit of self-

The right to an inheritance is transmitted immediately to the heirs by operation of law,

Neither method specifies a procedure for determining expenses chargeable to the

In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable to the

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Court of Appeals' decision and

Costs against petitioner.

You might also like