RULE 89

CASE NO. 4
PAHAMOTANG VS. PNB
G.R. No. 156403, March 21, 2005
PONENTE: GARCIA, J.

FACTS: On July 1, 1972, Melitona Pahamotang died. She was survived by her husband Agustin Pahamotang, and their eight (8)
children, namely: Ana, Genoveva, Isabelita, Corazon, Susana, Concepcion and herein petitioners Josephine and Eleonor, all
surnamed Pahamotang. On September 15, 1972, Agustin filed with the then Court of First Instance of Davao City a petition for
issuance of letters administration over the estate of his deceased wife. The petition, docketed as Special Case No. 1792, was raffled
to Branch VI of said court, hereinafter referred to as the intestate court. In his petition, Agustin identified petitioners Josephine and
Eleonor as among the heirs of his deceased spouse. It appears that Agustin was appointed petitioners' judicial guardian in an earlier
case - Special Civil Case No. 1785 also of the CFI of Davao City, Branch VI. On December 7, 1972, the intestate court issued an
order granting Agustins petition.
The late Agustin then executed several mortgages and later sale of the properties with the PNB and Arguna respectively. The heirs
later questioned the validity of the transactions prejudicial to them. The trial court found out that Agustin did not notify the petitioners
of the filing of his petitions for judicial authority to alienate estate assets. The court declared the real estate mortgage and the sale
void but both were valid with respect to the other parties. The decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals; to the appellate court,
petitioners committed a fatal error of mounting a collateral attack on the foregoing orders instead of initiating a direct action to annul
them.
ISSUE: Whether or not authority to mortgage or sell the estate asset is valid without notice to the heirs.

RULING:

The requirements of Rule 89 of the Rules of Court are mandatory and failure to give notice to the heirs would invalidate the authority
granted by the intestate/probate court to mortgage or sell estate assets.
When an order authorizing the sale or encumbrance of real property was issue by the testate or intestate court without previous
notice to heirs, devisees and legatees, it is not only the contract itself which is null and void but also the order of the court
authorizing the same.

****NOTICE TO HEIRS UNDER RULE 89 IS MANDATORY. FAILURE TO NOTIFY HEIRS INVALIDATES AUTHORITY TO
MORTGAGE OR SELL ESTATE ASSETS.