Petitioners vs. vs. Respondents Herminio L. Ruiz Vicente D. Millora Romero A. Yu
Petitioners vs. vs. Respondents Herminio L. Ruiz Vicente D. Millora Romero A. Yu
Petitioners vs. vs. Respondents Herminio L. Ruiz Vicente D. Millora Romero A. Yu
SYLLABUS
DECISION
CAMPOS, JR. , J : p
The decedent was succeeded by eight heirs, two of whom are the petitioner herein, and the
others are the private respondents.
Due to the prolonged pendency of the case before the respondent Court for sixteen years,
respondent-heirs filed a "Motion for Approval of Sale", on October 4, 1989. The said sale
involved the properties covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 155569, 120145,
9145, and 18709, all of which are registered in Quezon City, and form part of the estate.
The consideration for said lots was twelve (12) million pesos and by that time, they already
had a buyer. It was further stated in said Motion that respondent-heirs have already
received their proportionate share of the six (6) million pesos paid by the buyer, Yu Hwa
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Ping, as earnest money; that the balance of P6,000,000.00 is more than enough to pay the
unsettled claims against the estate. Thus, they prayed for the Court to direct the
administrator, Herodotus Acebedo (referred to as petitioner-administrator hereafter): llcd
2. with the balance of P6 million, to pay all the claims against the Estate; and
3. to distribute the residue among the Heirs in final settlement of the Estate.
On October 30, 1989, herein petitioners moved to be given a period of forty-five (45) days
within which to look for a buyer who will be willing to buy the properties at a price higher
than P12,000,000.00.
The case was set for hearing on December 15, 1989. However, by said date, petitioners
have not found any buyer offering better terms. Thus, they asked the Court, on February 8,
1990, for an inextendible period of thirty days to look for a buyer.
Petitioner-administrator then filed a criminal complaint for falsification of a public
document against Yu Hwa Ping and notary public Eugenio Obon on February 26, 1990. He
initiated this complaint upon learning that it was Yu Hwa Ping who caused the notarization
of the Deed of Conditional Sale wherein allegedly petitioner-administrator's signature was
made to appear. He also learned that after he confronted the notary public of the
questioned document, the latter revoked his notarial act on the same. LLphil
On April 2, 1990, petitioner-administrator filed the civil action to secure the declaration by
the Court of the nullity of the Deed of Conditional Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale.
The period granted herein petitioners having lapsed without having found a buyer,
petitioner Demosthenes Acebedo sought to nullify the Orders granting them several
periods within which to look for a better buyer. Respondents filed a comment thereon.
Having miserably failed to find a better buyer, after seven long months, petitioner-
administrator filed another "Opposition to Approval of Sale", dated May 10, 1990,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
maintaining that the sale should wait for the country to recover from the effects of the
coup d'etat attempts, otherwise, the properties should be divided among the heirs.
On June 21, 1990, petitioners filed a "Motion for Leave of Court to Mortgage and Lease
some of the Properties of the Estate". To this Motion, respondents filed an Opposition on
the following grounds: that the motion is not proper because of the pending motion to
approve the sale of the same properties; that said conditional sale was initiated by
petitioner-administrator who had earlier signed a receipt for P500,000.00 as earnest
money; that the approval of the sale would mean Yu Hwa Ping's assumption of payment of
the realty taxes; that the estate has no further debts and thus, the intestate administrator
may be terminated.
On August 17, 1990, respondent Court issued an Order, the dispositive portion of which,
stated, among others, to wit: 2
"b. the motion filed by the heirs-movants, dated October 4, 1989, praying that
the new administrator be directed to sell the properties covered by TCT Nos.
155569, 120145, 9145 and 18709, in favor of Yu Hwa Ping is hereby denied; and
c. the new administrator is hereby granted leave to mortgage some properties
of the estate at a just and reasonable amount, subject to the approval of the
Court."
On December 4, 1990, the respondent Judge issued an order resolving to call the parties
to a conference on December 17, 1990. The conference was held, but still the parties were
unable to arrive at an agreement. So, on January 4, 1991, it was continued, wherein the
parties actually agreed that the heirs be allowed to sell their shares of the properties to Yu
Hwa Ping for the price already agreed upon, while herein petitioners negotiate for a higher
price with Yu Hwa Ping. cdll
Petitioners, then, instead filed a "Supplemental Opposition" to the approval of the Deed of
Conditional Sale.
On March 29, 1991, the respondent Court issued the challenged Order, the dispositive
portion of which states, to wit:
"WHEREFORE, the Order dated August 7, 1990, is hereby lifted, reconsidered and
set aside, and another one is hereby issued as follows:
1. Approving the conditional sale, dated September 10, 1989, executed by the
heirs-movants, in favor of Yu Hwa Ping, pertaining to their respective shares in the
properties covered by TCT Nos. 155569, 120145, 1945 and 18709 of the Register
of Deeds of Quezon City;
2. Ordering the administrator Herodotus Acebedo to sell the remaining
portions of the said properties also in favor of Yu Hwa Ping at the same price as
the sale executed by the herein heirs-movants;
3. Ordering Yu Hwa Ping to deposit with the Court the total remaining balance
of the purchase price for the said lots within TWENTY (20) DAYS from notice
hereof; 4. The motion to cite former administrator Miguel Acebedo in contempt of
court, resulting from his failure to submit the owner's copy of TCT Nos. 155569,
and 120145 is hereby denied." 3
We cannot countenance the position maintained by herein petitioners that said conditional
sale is null and void for lack of prior court approval. The sale precisely was made
conditional, the condition being that the same should first be approved by the probate
court.
Petitioners herein anchor their claim on Section 7, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court. 6 It is
settled that court approval is necessary for the validity of any disposition of the decedent's
estate. However, reference to judicial approval cannot adversely affect the substantive
rights of the heirs to dispose of their ideal share in the co-heirship and/or co-ownership
among the heirs. 7
This Court had the occasion to rule that there is no doubt that an heir can sell whatever
right, interest, or participation he may have in the property under administration. This is a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the probate court. 8
The right of an heir to dispose of the decedent's property, even if the same is under
administration, is based on the Civil Code provision 9 stating that the possession of
hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption and from the
moment of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted. Where there are
however, two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition ,
owned in common by such heirs. 1 0
The Civil Code, under the provisions on co-ownership, further qualifies this right. 1 1
Although it is mandated that each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of
the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and thus may alienate, assign or mortgage it, and
even substitute another person in its enjoyment, the effect of the alienation or the
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be
allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. 1 2 In other words,
the law does not prohibit a co-owner from selling, alienating or mortgaging his ideal share
in the property held in common. 1 3
As early as 1942, this Court has recognized said right of an heir to dispose of property
under administration. In the case of Teves de Jakosalem vs. Rafols, et al., 1 4 it was said
that the sale made by an heir of his share in an inheritance, subject to the result of the
pending administration, in no wise, stands in the way of such administration. The Court
then relied on the provision of the Old Civil Code, Article 440 and Article 399 which are still
in force as Article 533 and Article 493, respectively, in the new Civil Code. The Court also
cited the words of a noted civilist, Manresa: "Upon the death of a person, each of his heirs
'becomes the undivided owner of the whole estate left with respect to the part or portion
which might be adjudicated to him, a community of ownership being thus formed among
the co-owners of the estate which remains undivided'." prcd
Private respondents having secured the approval of the probate court, a matter which is
unquestionably within its jurisdiction, and having established private respondents' right to
alienate the decedent's property subject of administration, this Petition should be
dismissed for lack of merit.
PREMISES considered, Petition is hereby DISMISSED. With Costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Feliciano, Regalado and Nocon, JJ ., concur.
Footnotes
a. The executor or administrator shall file a written petition setting forth the debts
due from the deceased, the expenses of administration, the legacies, the value of the
personal estate, the situation of the estate to be sold, mortgaged or otherwise
encumbered, and such other facts as show that the sale, mortgage, or other
encumbrance is necessary or beneficial;
b. The court shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such petition, and
cause notice stating the nature of the petition, the reason for the same, and the time and
place of hearing, to be given personally or by mail to the persons interested, and may
cause such further notice to be given, by publication or otherwise, as it shall deem
proper;
c. If the court requires it, the executor or administrator shall give an additional
bond, in such sum as the court directs, conditioned that such executor or administrator
will account for the proceeds of the sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance;
d. If the requirements in the preceding subdivisions of this section have been
complied with, the court, by order stating such compliance, may authorize the executor
or administrator to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber, in proper cases, such part of
the estate as it deemed necessary, and in case of sale the court may authorize it to be
public or private, as would be most beneficial to all parties concerned. The executor or
administrator shall be furnished with a certified copy of such order . . .