J.

Dumaual 2020-2021

SAN LUIS V SAN LUIS competent or willing to serve; If no such creditor

is available, it may be granted to such other
 Under the Rules of Court, is it possible that person as the court may select.)
the person may have a different residence and - LEGAL BASIS: SECTION 6, RULE 78
domicile?
 Who is an interested person?
- 1ST DOCTRINE: YES. The residence of a
person refers to one’s personal, actual, or - 3RD DOCTRINE: An interested person is one
physical habituation, or actual residence or who would be benefited by the estate, such as
place of abode which may not be necessarily an HEIR, or ONE WHO HAS A CLAIM
be one’s legal residence or domicile AGAINST THE ESTATE, such as a creditor.
PROVIDED ONE RESIDES THEREIN WITH The interest must be MATERIAL and DIRECT,
CONTINUITY AND CONSISTENCY. NOT merely INDIRECT OR CONTIGENT.
- For purposes under the Rules of Court, the - LEGAL BASIS: SECTION 2, RULE 79
residence of the person may not necessarily be
his/her legal residence, hence it is possible
that the person may have his/her residence in
one place and domicile in another. GARCIA-QUIAZON VS. BELEN
- LEGAL BASIS: SECTION 1, RULE 73
 Does Elise have a cause of action for the
declaration of nullity of the void marriage in
 Whom can letters of administration be granted the case?
to? - YES. Void marriages can be questioned even
after the death of either party. Any interested
- 2nd DOCTRINE: Letters of administration may party may attack the marriage directly or
be granted to the surviving spouse of the COLLATERALLY without prescription. As a
decedent. (Full enumeration: Surviving spouse COMPULSORY HEIR, Elise has a cause of
of the decdent, or next of kin, or both in the action for the declaration of nullity because
DISCRETION OF THE COURT; If the first her successional rights would be prejudiced.
selection is unwilling or incompetent or neglects - DOCTRINE: Interested Party
for thirty (30) days to apply for another person, - LEGAL BASIS: SECTION 2, RULE 79
it may be granted to any principal creditor, if

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 1

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS of each

heir, and whether the property in the
AGTARAP VS. AGTARAP inventory is CONJUGAL or EXCLUSIVE
property of the deceased spouse.
 Can the probate court’s jurisdiction extend
- 2ND DOCTRINE: When the marriage is
beyond matters outside of the probate of a
dissolved by the death of either the husband
will?
or the wife, the COMMUNITY PROPERTY shall
be inventoried, administered, and liquidated,
- YES. The general rule is that the probate
and the debts thereof paid in the testate or
court’s jurisdiction relates only to matters
intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse,
having to do with the probate of the will
and if both spouses have died, the conjugal
and/or the settlement of the estate of the
partnership shall be liquidated in the testate
deceased. It does not extend to the
or intestate proceedings of either.
determination of questions of ownership that
- LEGAL BASIS: (1) Jurisprudence; (2) In the
arise during proceedings, EXCEPT IN THE
issue of the court identifying if the property in
FOLLOWING CASES:
question is conjugal in nature, SECTION 2,
- XPNS: (1) Provisional and interlocutory
RULE 73
passage upon the question of inclusion in, or
exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of SUNTAY III VS. COJUANCO-SUNTAY
property WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
FINAL DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP IN  Who should be appointed as administrator?
A SEPARATE ACTION (2) Interested parties What is the principal consideration in
are ALL HEIRS, or the QUESTION OF determining such an appointment?
COLLATION OR ADVACEMENT or the
PARTIES CONSENT to the assumption of - DOCTRINE: The person who will reap the
jurisdiction by the probate court and (3) THE benefits and suffer the consequences of
RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES ARE NOT management or mismanagement has the
IMPAIRED. highest interest and most influential motive to
- 1ST DOCTRINE: The jurisdiction of the probate administer the estate correctly. The primordial
court EXTENDS to matters incidental or consideration of the court is the
collateral to the SETTLEMENT and PROSPECTIVE ADMINISTRATOR’S INTEREST
DISTRIBUTION of the ESTATE, such as the in the estate. The candidate should

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 2

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

demonstrate an interest greater than any  Can an administrator or prospective heir

other candidate. Mere interest in the estate ALIENATE properties from the estate of the
does not ipso facto entitle an interested person deceased PENDING final adjudication,
in the co-administration; nor do adverse WITHOUT court approval?
interests among the heirs necessitate the
discounting of the order of preference set forth - No. Any disposition of estate property by an
in the Rules. administrator or prospective heir pending final
- LEGAL BASIS: Jurispurdence adjudication requires court approval. Any
unauthorized disposition of estate property
 In what cases may the Court appoint co- can be annulled by the PROBATE COURT,
administrators for the benefit of the estate? there being NO NEED FOR A SEPARATE
ACTION TO ANNUL SUCH.
- Having benefits of their judgment and perhaps - DOCTRINE: Where the appropriation of estate
at all times having different interests be properties is INVALID, the subsequent sale
represented; thereof to a third party without court approval
- Where justice and equity demand the is likewise invalid. An heir can only alienate
opposing parties or factions be represented in such portion of the estate by the probate or
the management of the estate of the deceased; intestate court AFTER FINAL ADJUDICATION,
- Where the estate is large or, from any cause, that is, after all debtors shall have been paid
an intricate and perplexing one to settle; or the devisees or legatees shall have been
- Having interested persons satisfied and the given their shares.
representatives working harmony for the best - LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence
interests of the estate;
- When a person entitled to the administration
of the estate desires to have another  Can an heir sell his/her RIGHT, INTEREST, or
competent person associated with him/her in PARTICIPATION in the PROPERTY
the office ADMINISTRATION?
- LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence - Yes. An heir may only sell his/her IDEAL OR
UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE ESTATE, not any
LEE VS. RTC SPECIFIC PROPERTY therein. Under Article
533 of the New Civil Code, the possession is

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 3

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

deemed transmitted to the heir without - Dr. Jose Ortanez died and was succeeded by
interruption from the MOMENT OF DEATH OF his wife and three legitimate children..
THE DECEDENT. This article does not apply - The family entered into an extrajudicial
to SPECIFIC PROPERTIES BUT RATHER settlement of estate among themselves and
ONLY THE INTEREST of the heir. afterwards, some of the children sold the
- LEGAL BASIS: ARTICLE 533, NCC shares of stock to FLAG.
- The sale was declared null and void by the
 Does the probate court have the power to lower courts
declare the sale of such SPECIFIC properties - ISSUE: W/ the sale is null and void
from the estate INVALID? - YES. Any disposition of estate property by an
administrator and/or prospective heir pending
- Yes. The intestate court has the power to final adjudication requires court approval and
execute its order with regard to the nullity of any unauthorized disposition of estate
an unauthorized sale of estate property; property can be annulled by the probate
otherwise its power to annul the unauthorized court, there being no need for a separate
or fraudulent disposition of estate property action to annul such unauthorized
would be meaningless. The title of a purchaser disposition.
of an estate property can be struck down by - An heir may only sell his/her ideal or
the intestate court after a clear showing of the undivided share in the estate, not any specific
nullity of the alientation. property, which was not done in the case at
- DOCTRINE: Where the issue is the effect of hand since the heirs sold specific properties.
the sale made by the decedent’s heirs without - Hence, the sale can be declared null and void.
the required approval of the intestate court,
not with the issue of inclusion or exclusion of HEIRS OF RUIZ VS. CA
properties in the inventory of the estate, the  Does the probate court have authority to
determination thereon by the intestate court
distribute the estate of the deceased before
IS NOT MERELY PROVISIONAL.
paying its debts and obligations?
- LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence

SHORTENED VERSION: - No. In settlement of estate proceedings, the

distribution of the estate properties can only
be made upon the fulfillment of the following:

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 4

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

o All the debts, funeral charges, expenses SHORTENED VERSION:

of administration, allowance to the
widow, and ESTATE TAX have been - Hilario M. Ruiz died leaving a holographic will
paid; or naming his son, Edmond Ruiz as the executor
o Before paying, the distributees or any of of his estate.
them give a bond in a sum fixed by the - The cash component of his estate was
court CONDITIONED UPON THE immediately distributed among Edmond Ruiz
PAYMENT OF SAID OBLIGATIONS and private respondents.
within such time as the court directs or - The court then issued an order in favor of
when the provision is made to meet Edmond to take possession of the rental
those obligations. payments of the properties it leased out.
- 1ST DOCTRINE: No distribution shall be - The court also issued a release of titles of the
allowed unless and until the payment of the properties to certain heirs and granted
obligations have been made or provided for possession of all properties of the estate to the
UNLESS the distributees, or any of them give executor of the will.
a bond in a sum to be fixed by the court, - ISSUE: W/ the court has authority to
conditioned for the payment of said distribute the estate before paying debts and
obligations within such time as the court obligations of the estate
directs. - NO. Distribution of the estate shall not be
- LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence allowed until the payment of the obligations
have been made, unless the distributees or
 Is the right of an executor or administrator to any of them give a bond, in a sum fixed by the
the possession and management of the real court, conditioned for the payment of the
and personal properties of the deceased, obligations.
absolute? - Hilario Ruiz allegedly left no debts however;
the taxes due from his estate have not been
- No. The right will only subsist and be paid. As this must first be complied with, the
exercised so long as it is necessary for the properties cannot still be distributed.
payment of the debts and expenses of UNIONBANK VS. SANTIBANEZ
administration.
- LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 5

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

 Can there be a valid partition among the heirs determine whether it is a proper one
even before a will has been probated? which should be allowed;
o For the speedy settlement of affairs of
- No. As soon as the probate court acquires the deceased;
jurisdiction over all the properties of the o The early delivery of property to
deceased, no other court can dispose of such distributees, legatees, and heirs.
properties without the probate court’s - LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence
approval. Doing so would be tantamount to
divesting the latter of its jurisdiction. A SHORTENED VERSION:
probate court acting as such, exercises limited
jurisdiction. The said court is primarily
concerned with the administration, HEIRS OF SPS. MAGLASANG VS. MANILA BANKING
liquidation, and distribution of the estate. In CORP.
executing any joint agreement which appears
to be in the nature of an EXTRAJUDICIAL FACTS:
PARTITION, as in the case at bar, court
 PONENTE: J. Perlas-Bernabe
approval is imperative, and the heirs CANNOT
 MOTION: Petition For Review on Certiorari
just DIVEST the court of its jurisdiction over
any part of the estate.  Sps. Maglasang obtained a credit line from
- LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence MBC secured by REM. When Flaviano
Maglasang died, his son Edgar was appointed
 Why is there a time prescribed for notice of as atty-in-fact by Flaviano’s heirs.
 He filed a petition for letters of administration
claims against the estate?
of Flaviano’s intestate estate w/c the probate
court granted.
- The time limit for filing claims against the  Court issued a Notice to Creditors for filing of
estate exists for the following reasons: money claims against the estate. MBC notified
o To protect the state of the deceased by the court of its claim. When Court terminated
informing the executor or administrator the proceedings and executed an extra-judicial
of the claims against it, thus enabling partition over the properties, the loan
obligations owed to MBC remained unsatisfied
him/her to examine each claim and to
though the court recognized the rights of MBC
to foreclose the mortgage.

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 6

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

 MBC extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage;  What are the three (3) remedies that may be
however, after auction sale, a deficiency resorted by a secured creditor?
remained on Maglasangs’ obligation. Thus, it - Waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt
filed a suit to recover the deficiency.
from the estate of the mortgagor as an
 RTC ruled in their (MBC) favor so the
ORDINARY CLAIM
Maglasangs appealed to CA contending that
under Remedies available to Manila Banking - Foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove
Corp. under Sec. 7, Rule 86 of ROC are the deficiency as an ORDINARY CLAIM
alternative and exclusive, such that the election - Rely on the mortgage exclusively, or other
of one operates as a waiver of the others and security and foreclose the same before it is
since MBC filed a claim in the probate court, it barred by prescription without the right to file
has abandoned its right to foreclose the
a claim for any deficiency.
property and is barred from recovering any
deficiency. - LEGAL BASIS: SECTION 7, RULE 86
 CA denied the appeal and contended that Act.
3135 applies w/c allows MBC to extrajudicially  May the creditor avail of more than one
foreclose and recover the deficiency. remedy?
 ISSUE: W/ SECTION 7, RULE 86 of the RoC - No. They may only be alternatively adopted for
and not Article 3135 applies in this case the satisfaction of his/her indebtedness.
 HELD: MBC had a right to extrajudicially These remedies are DISTINCT,
foreclose the property but it cannot recover the
deficiency. Both Sec. 7, Rule 86 of ROC and INDEPENDENT, AND MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Act. 3135 apply complementarily in the case at from one another; the election of one
bar. Foreclosure under the 3rd remedy in Sec. effectively BARS the exercise of others.
7, Rule 86 of ROC includes extrajudicial - LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence
foreclosure under Act. 3135. However, upon
choosing said remedy, creditor waives his right
to recover the deficiency. When MBC sought to
extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage of the  What are nuances of the third remedy from
properties previously belonging to Sps. the others?
Maglasang and it therefore, availed of the third - The availment of the third option BARS
option waiving its right to recover the HIM/HER from claiming any deficiency
deficiency.
amount. After such option is chosen, the
procedure is also governed by the provisions
of Act. No 3135. Operation of Act. No. 3135

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 7

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

does not entirely discount the application of  Subsequently, when Donata died, Erlinda
Section 7 of Rule 86, or vice-versa. The two (2) instituted a petition for the administration of the
complement each other within their respective intestate estate of Donata.
spheres of operation.  Erlinda (Donata’s niece) and her husband,
Gregorio, were appointed as administrators of
 When is Judicial Foreclosure deemed elected Donata’s intestate estate. Thirty-three (33) years
by the Mortgage Creditor? after Maximino’s death, Silverio, a nephew of
- Upon the filing of the suit for collection OR Maximino, filed for Letters of Administration for
upon the filing of the complaint in an action the intestate estate of Maximino, this was initially
for foreclosure of mortgage, pursuant to Rule granted. But then, Gregorio filed a Motion to Set
68. aside the Order, claiming that the said properties
were already under his and his wife’s
 When is Extrajudicial Foreclosure deemed administration as part of the intestate estate of
elected by the Mortgage Creditor? Donata.
- Upon the filing of the petition with the Office  Thereafter, he filed a complaint against the heirs
of the Sheriff of the province where the sale is of Donata for the partition, annulment, and
to be made in accordance with the provisions recovery of possession of real property. They
of Act No. 3135 as amended by Act No. 4118. alleged that Donata, as administratrix of the
estate of Maximino, through fraud and
PILAPIL VS. HEIRS OF BRIONES misrepresentation, in breach of trust, and
FACTS: without the knowledge of the other heirs,
succeeded in registering in her name the real
 PONENTE: J. Chico-Nazario properties belonging to the intestate estate of
 MOTION: Motion for Reconsideration Maximino.
 Maximino was married to Donata but their union  ISSUE: W/ Silverio has a rightful claim to recover
did not produce any children. When Maximino his share from Maximino’s estate based on the
died, Donata instituted intestate proceedings to alleged misrepresentation of Donata
settle her husband’s estate, which appointed  RULING: NONE. Silverio’s cause of action had
Donata as the administratrix of Maximino’s already prescribed. Under Article 1144 of the
estate. NCC, actions must be brought within ten (10)
years from the time the right of action accrues. In

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 8

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

this case, there is an obligation created by law - YES. The publication in the newspapers of the
which falls under the purview of the Article, filing of the application and of the date set for
hence Silverio had only ten (10) years to bring an the hearing of the same, in the manner
action for reconveyance of their shares in prescribed by law, IS A NOTICE TO THE
Maximino’s estate. WHOLE WORLD OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE
 Furthermore, Donata was able to register the real PROCEEDINGS, and of the hearing on the
properties in her name, not through fraud or date and time indicated in the publication.
mistake, but pursuant to an Order, dated 2 - LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence
October 1952, issued by the CFI in Special
Proceedings No. 928-R.
 The CFI Order, presumed to be fairly and SABIDONG VS. SOLAS
regularly issued, declared Donata as the sole,
absolute, and exclusive heir of Maximino; hence, FACTS:
making Donata the singular owner of the entire
estate of Maximino, including the real properties,  PONENTE: Villarama, Jr.
and not merely a co-owner with the other heirs of  MOTION: Administrative Case
her deceased husband.  The subject of this controversy is Lot No. 11. It’s
part of the Hodges Estate which is a subject of
 What is the purpose of the publication pending intestate proceedings.
requirement of notice?  Rodolfo Sabidong is the son of Trinidad Sabidong,
- To inform all interested parties in the estate of one of the longest occupants of subject lot. There
the deceased of the existence of the settlement was an ejectment suit filed by the Hodges Estate
proceedings, most especially those who were docketed at the MTCC Iloilo City Branch 4.
not named as heirs or creditors in the petition,  A decision was rendered ordering the occupants
REGARDLESS of whether such omission was to vacate the portion of Lot 11 leased to Trinidad.
VOLUNTARILY OR INVOLUNTARILY MADE.  At that time, herein respondent, Nicolasito Solas,
- LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence was the Clerk of Court III of MTCC, Branch 3,
Iloilo City.
 Is the settlement of estate (regardless whether  Nicolasito offered to purchase Lot 11. The probate
it’s testate or intestate) a proceeding IN REM? court granted Solas’ motion for the issuance of a
writ of possession. Thereafter a deed of Sale with

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 9

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

mortgage covering Lot 11 was executed. A new delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the
certificate in the name of Solas was issued. same.
 The Court then received a sworn letter- complaint - A property forming part of the estate under
asserting that Solas cannot buy the property that judicial settlement continues to be subject of
is still subject of litigation and that Solas litigation until the probate court issues an
committed deception, dishonesty, oppression, order declaring the estate proceedings are
and grave abuse of authority. closed and terminated.
 Is an estate proceeding considered pending - APPLICATION: Since there is no evidence to
litigation in relation to the ban of a court show that the Special Proceedings concerning
official from purchasing such properties under subject lot has already been closed and
Article 1491 of the New Civil Code? terminated at the time of the execution of the
- YES. For the prohibition to apply, the sale or deed of sale with mortgage, Lot 11 is still
assignment of the property must take place deemed to be in litigation subject to the
DURING THE PENDENCY of the litigation operation of Article 1491 (5) of the NCC.
involving the property. The prohibition - Despite this, it was held that Solas did not
includes the act of acquiring by assignment violate the rule on disqualification of an officer
and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the of the court to purchase because the special
property and rights which may be the object of proceeding was then pending before another
any litigation in which they may take part by court and not the MTCC where he was the
virtue of their profession. Where the property Clerk of Court.
is acquired after the termination of the case,
no violation of (5) Article 1491 of the Civil  When can something be considered “in
Code attaches. litigation”?
- As long as the order for the distribution of the - It is considered in litigation not only if there is
estate has not been complied with, the some contest over it in court, but also from
PROBATE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE the moment that it becomes subject to the
DEEMED CLOSED AND TERMINATED. The judicial action of the judge.
probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate
under administration only after the payment
of all the debts and the remaining estate ARANAS VS. MERCADO

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 10

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

FACTS:  ISSUE: W/ the RTC has the authority to order the

inclusion of the Badian Property in the inventory
 PONENTE: Bersamin in the course of the intestate proceedings
 MOTION: Certiorari under Rule 45  Is the probate court authorized to determine
 Emigdio S. Mercado owned shares in Mervir the issue of ownership of properties for
Realty Corporation and Cebu Emerson purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from
Transportation Corporation. the inventory to be submitted by the
 He assigned his real properties in exchange for administrator?
stocks in Mervir Realty and sold his real property - YES. The probate court is authorized to
in Badian Cebu to the same. determine the issue of ownership of properties
 Emigdio died intestate and was survived by his for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion
second wife Teresita Mercado and their five (5) from the inventory to be submitted by the
children: Allan, Felimon, Carmencita, Richard, court administrator, but its determination
and Maria. Emigdio was also survived by his two shall only be PROVISIONAL unless the
children, Franklin Mercado and Thelma Aranas. interested parties are all heirs of the decedent,
Thelma is the petitioner. or the QUESTION IS ONE OF COLLATION OR
 Teresita, the wife, was appointed as the ADVANCEMENT, or the parties CONSENT to
administrator of Emigdio’s estate. She indicated the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate
in the inventory that Emigdio left only personal court and the RIGHTS OF THIRD PERSONS
properties and no real properties. ARE NOT IMPAIRED.
 Thelma then claimed that Emigdio owned - Questions of title may be passed on
properties which were not included in the PROVISIONALLY, but the final determination
inventory. of the ownership of the property must be
 The parties submitted themselves in the threshed out in a separate civil action and not
jurisdiction of the court to properly identify what in a probate court.
properties should be included in the inventory. - Although, generally, a probate court cannot
 The Regional Trial Court ruled that the Badian adjudicate or determine title to properties
Property should have been included in the claimed to be a part of the estate and that
inventory. which are claimed to belong to outside parties,
not by virtue of any right of inheritance from
the deceased but by title adverse to that of the

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 11

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

deceased and his/her estate. All that the court deceased survived and substituted by son Dr.
could do regarding said properties is to Ruel Villafria) without their consent.
determine whether they should be included in  Petitioner Butiong herein contends that the trial
the inventory of properties to be administered court had no jurisdiction to rule on the matter
by the administrator. because the allegations in the complaint filed by
- APPLICATION: The RTC acted with Respondents Plazo show that the cause of action
circumspection and proceeded under the is actually one for SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF
guiding policy that it was best to include all THE DECEDENT PEDRO RINOZA.
properties in the possession of the  Considering that the settlement of estate is a
administrator or what was known by the special proceeding cognizable by a probate court
administrator to belong to Emigdio rather of LIMITED JURISDICTION whereas JUDICIAL
than exclude properties that could be actually PARTITION WITH ANNULMENT OF TITLE AND
part of the decedent’s estate. RECOVERY OF POSSESSION is an ordinary civil
- LEGAL BASIS: SECTION 1, RULE 83 action cognizable by a court of general
jurisdiction, the trial court exceeded its
BUTIONG VS. PLAZO
jurisdiction in entertaining the respondent’s
FACTS: complaint.
 ISSUE: W/ the trial court has jurisidiction in this
 PONENTE: Peralta case
 MOTION: Petition for Review on Certiorari under  RULING: YES. A complaint alleging a cause of
Rule 45 action which identifies the heirs of the decedent,
 Pedro Rinoza died intestate without any debts properties of the estate and their rights thereto
leaving several properties and several heirs. These does not ipso facto make it an action for
heirs included Maria Gracia Plazo and Maria Fe settlement of estate.
Alaras his first wife and his daughter, herein  The general rule is that when a person dies
respondents in this case. intestate or testate, but then failed to name an
 Maria filed an action for Judicial Partition with executor or such executor is incompetent or fails
Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession on his/her obligations under the Rules of Court, the
the ground that their co-heirs, Benita Tenorio and decedent’s estate shall be judicially administered
her children had sold subject properties to sps and a subsequent appointment of a qualified
Francisco Villafria and Maria Butiong (both administrator shall be done.

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 12

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

 Is there a scenario wherein there is no need  PONENTE: Villarama Jr.

for the appointment of an administrator to  MOTION: Petition for Review Under Rule 45 of the
administer the state? Rules of Court
- Yes. The situation contemplated is that stated  The late Beatrize Silverio passed away intestate.
under Section 1 of Rule 74 wherein the She was survived by her legal heirs: her husband,
decedent left no will and no debts due from Ricardo Sr.(the petitioner), her daughters, Ligaya
his/her estate. In a situation where the and Nelia, and her sons, Edmundo, Edgardo and
deceased dies without pending obligations, herein respondent Ricardo Jr.
there is no necessity for the appointment of an  Several petitions and appeals were made
administrator to administer the estate for challenging the orders of the intestate court.
him/her and to deprive the real owners of These challenges even made their way to the
their possession to which they are Supreme Court. An action of disqualification of a
immediately entitled. The heirs may divide the judge was even pursued by Ricardo Jr. and his
estate either extrajudicially or in an siblings.
ordinary action for partition without  An action was then filed to remove Ricardo Sr. as
submitting the same for judicial the administrator of the estate of his late wife.
administration or applying for the Ricardo Jr. was set to replace his father in the
appointment of an administrator by the court. administration of Beatriz’s estate. Ricardo Jr. was
- LEGAL BASIS: SECTION 1, RULE 74 then appointed as the new administrator.
- APPLICATION: Pedro died intestate and left no  By virtue of an Order by the probate court for the
obligations or debts due, hence contrary to sale of certain properties belonging to the estate,
what the petitioner asserts, the respondents Ricardo Jr. executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in
were under no legal obligation to submit favor of Citrine Holdings, Monica P. Ocampo,
subject properties for a special proceeding for and ZEE2 Resources over the properties located
settlement of estate. It is even quite in Makati.
encouraged to have the same partitioned  Ricardo Sr. opposed the sale of the properties and
judicially or extrajudicially. sought to annul the same. The annulment of the
sale was granted by the probate court, however,
RICARDO SILVERIO SR. VS. RICARDO SILVERIO JR.
on appeal, the CA upheld the validity of the sale
FACTS: of the properties.

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 13

 J. Dumaual 2020-2021

 Ricardo Sr. then argued before the SC that the October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order upholding
CA committed a reversible error in upholding the the grant of letters of administration to and
validity of the sale of the properties upon the taking of an oath of administration by
ground that the probate court cannot annul the respondent Silverio, Jr., as otherwise the CA
sales as it has a limited jurisdiction only and would have expressly set aside as well the
which does not include resolving issues of directive in the same Omnibus Order allowing
ownership. the sale of the subject properties.
 Can a probate court annul a sale? - Therefore, respondents Ocampo, Citrine and
- Yes. An unauthorized sale by an administrator ZEE2 should not be prejudiced by the flip-
of a property of the deceased is null and void flopping appointment of Administrator by the
and the title does not pass to the purchaser. intestate court, having relied in good faith that
- Any disposition of estate property by an the sale was authorized and with prior
administrator or prospective heir pending final approval of the intestate court under its
adjudication requires court approval. Any Omnibus Order dated October 31, 2006 which
unauthorized disposition of estate property remained valid and subsisting insofar as it
can be annulled by the probate court, there allowed the aforesaid sale
being no need for a separate action to annul
the unauthorized disposition.
- DOCTRINE: The probate court, having
jurisdiction over properties, under
administration, has the authority not only to
approve any disposition or conveyance, but
also to annul an unauthorized sale by the
prospective heirs or administrator.
- LEGAL BASIS: Jurisprudence
- DECISION TO FACTS: However, while it is
true that petitioner was eventually reinstated
as Administrator, the SC agree with the CA
that the permanent injunction issued under
the said decision, as explicitly stated in its
fallo, pertained only to the portions of the

Special Proceedings, Atty. Yuki Yulo Page 14