Special Proceedings

Mabutol, Mark Ryan

Munsayac, Edgardo
Nacion, Karen Ann

Ortiz, Thomas John

Renta, Romualdo
Santiago, Sarah Katrene

Tuazon, Brando

Distribution and Partition (Rule 90)

When may order of partition be made?
This procedure is preceded by an order of partition. An order of partition is an
agreement among the heirs. A distribution of the estate cannot be made if there are
debts to be paid, so prior to the distribution, the heirs may agree on the project of
partition because sometimes it is not practical to demand the physical distribution of
the property.

Before there could be a distribution of the estate, the following two stages must
be followed:

1. Payment of obligations (liquidation of estate) under the Rules, the distribution

of a decedents assets may only be ordered under any of the following three
circumstances:
a. when the inheritance tax, among other is paid;
b. when a sufficient bond is given to meet the payment of the inheritance
tax and all other obligations; and
c. when the payment of the said tax and all other obligations has been
provided for; and

2. Declaration of heirs there must first be declaration of heirs to determine to

whom the residue of the estate should be distributed. A separate action for the
declaration of heirs is not proper. And likewise after, not before the declaration of
heirs is made may the residue be distributed and delivered to the heirs.
The settlement of a decedents estate is a proceeding in rem which is binding
against the whole world. All persons having interests in the subject matter involved
whether they were notified or not are equally bound.

Liquidation
Sec. 1. When order for distribution of residue made. When the debts, funeral
charges, and expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow, and inheritance
tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on
the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person interested in the estate,
and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the persons
entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is
entitled, and such person may demand and recover their respective shares from the
executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his possession. If
there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased
person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the
controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.

No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above

mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them, give a
bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations
within such time as the court directs.

Sec. 2. Questions as to advancement to be determined. Questions as to

advancement made, or alleged to have been made, by the deceased to any heir may be
heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the
final order of the court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the questions and
on the heir.

Sec. 3. By whom expenses of partition paid. If at the time of the distribution the
executor or administrator has retained sufficient effects in his hands which may lawfully
be applied for the expenses of partition of the properties distributed, such expenses of
partition may be paid by such executor or administrator when it appears equitable to the
court and not inconsistent with the intention of the testator; otherwise, they shall be
paid by the parties in proportion to their respective shares or interest in the premises,
and the apportionment shall be settled and allowed by the court, and, if any person
interested in the partition does not pay his proportion or share, the court may issue an
execution in the name of the executor or administrator against the party not paying for
the sum assessed.

Project of Partition
Project of partition is a document prepared by the executor or administrator
setting forth the manner in which the estate of the deceased is to be distributed among
the heirs. If the estate is a testate estate, the project of partition must conform to the
terms of the will; if intestate, the project of partition must be in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Code (Camia de Reyes vs. Reyes de Ilano, 63 Phil. 629).

Remedies of an heir entitled to residue but not given his share:

1. If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the
deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled
under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases
(Sec. 1).
2. The better practice for the heir who has not received his share is to demand his
share through a proper motion in the same probate or administration
proceedings, or for reopening of the probate or administrative proceedings if it
had already been closed, and not through an independent action, which would be
tried by another court or judge (Ramos vs. Octuzar, 89 Phil. 730).
3. It has been held that an order which determines the distributive share of the heirs
of a deceased person is appealable. If not appealed within the reglementary
period, it becomes final (Imperial vs. Muoz, 58 SCRA).

4. The Court allowed the continuation of a separate action to annul the project of
partition by a preterited heir, since the estate proceedings have been closed and
terminated for over three years (Guilas vs. Judge of the CFI of Pampanga, 43
SCRA 117), and on the ground of lesion, preterition and fraud (Solivio vs. CA, 99
Phil. 1069)

Instances when probate court may issue writ of execution

The only instances when the probate court may issue a writ of execution are as
follows:

1. To satisfy the contributive shares of devisees, legatees and heirs in possession

of the decedents assets (Sec. 6, Rule 88);
2. To enforce payment of expenses of partition (Sec. 3, Rule 90); and
3. To satisfy the costs when a person is cited for examination in probate
proceedings (Sec. 13, Rule 132).

Applicable Jurisprudence

RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR.

DEE

vs. CA and NELIA S. SILVERIO-

G.R. No. 178933

The Facts:
The instant controversy stemmed from the settlement of estate of the deceased
Beatriz Silverio in which the RTC ordered the sale of various properties of the intestate
estate of the deceased to partially settle estate taxes, penalties, interests and other
charges thereon.
Among the properties authorized to be sold was one located at Forbes Park,
Makati City, occupied by herein respondent. The RTC further issued a writ of execution
and a notice to vacate the premises against her. Consequently, this was opposed and the
CA annulled and set aside the writ of execution and notice to vacate issued by the RTC.
Hence, this appeal.

The Issue:
Whether or not the authority granted by the administrator allowing the
respondent to remain in possession of the estate property while its obligations remain
unpaid is valid or not.

The Courts Ruling:

The alleged authority given by SILVERIO, Sr. for the respondent to occupy the
property is null and void since the possession of estate property can only be given to a
purported heir by virtue of an Order from this Court. Rule 90, Section 1 is explicit when
it states that No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above
mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them, give a
bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations
within such time as the court directs. In fact, the Executor or Administrator shall have
the right to the possession and management of the real as well as the personal estate of

the deceased only when it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses of
administration. (Section 3, Rule 84, Revised Rules of Court).

With this in mind, it is without a doubt that the possession by the respondent of
the property in question was absolutely no legal basis considering that her occupancy
cannot pay the debts and expenses of administration.
Additionally, the above provision must be viewed in the context that the subject
property is part of an estate and subject to intestate proceedings before the courts. It is,
thus, relevant to note that in Rule 84, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the administrator
may only deliver properties of the estate to the heirs upon order of the Court. Similarly,
under Rule 90, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the properties of the estate shall only be
distributed after the payment of the debts, funeral charges, and other expenses against
the estate except when authorized by the Court.

VDA DE GURREA v SUPLICO

G.R. No. 144320
THE FACTS:
Rosalina Gurrea owns a parcel of land located in San Juan , Metro Manila. She
transferred the ownership of the same to Adelina Gurrea. The latter possessed
ownership of the land until her death. Thereafter her heirs instituted the probate of her
will for the purpose of settling her estate, the case was Special Proceedings No. 7185.
One Ricardo Gurrea as duly represented by Atty. Suplico filed an opposition against the
probate. As a result of the opposition, the heirs arrived at an amicable settlement,
furthermore they drew up a project of partition of which the subject San Juan lot was
distributed to Ricardo Gurrea along with several other properties. This land was then
transferred by Ricardo Gurrea to Atty. Suplico as part of the contingent fee of 20%, a
deed of transfer of rights was executed, notarized and registered in the register of deeds
of San Juan. The petitioners herein contends that the said transfer of lot to Atty. Suplico
was null and avoid by reason that Special Proceedings 7185 was not yet terminated,
hence the lot was still a subject of litigation. According to Article 1491 of the New Civil
Code 1491, The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or
judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other
officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and
rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or
territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights
which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue
of their profession.

THE ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Special Proceedings 7185 have already been closed and
terminated when the subject lot was transferred to Atty. Suplicio ?
2. What will be the status of the transfer or rights and interest in case the
probate proceedings have not yet been closed?

THE COURTS RULING:

1. As correctly cited by petitioners, the Court held in Lucero v. Baaga that:
[t]he term delivery or tradition has two aspects: (1) the de jure delivery or the
execution of deeds of conveyance and (2) the delivery of the material possession
(The usual practice is that, if the land to be delivered is in the name of the decedent, the
administrator executes a deed, conveying the land to the distributee. That deed,
together with the project of partition, the order approving it, the letters of
administration and the certification as to the payment of the estate, inheritance and
realty taxes, is registered in the corresponding Registry of Deeds. Title would then be
issued to the distributee.
Thereafter, the administrator or executor places him in material possession of the land if
the same is in the custody of the former.
There being no evidence to show that material possession of the property was given to
Ricardo, the probate proceedings concerning Adelinas estate cannot be deemed to have
been closed and terminated and the subject property still the object of litigation.
2 . Having been established that the subject property was still the object of litigation at
the time the subject deed of Transfer of Rights and Interest was executed, the
assignment of rights and interest over the subject property in favor of respondent is null
and void for being violative of the provisions of Article 1491 of the Civil Code which

expressly prohibits lawyers from acquiring property or rights which may be the object of
any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession

Torres, et.al. vs. Encarnacion and de Borja

G.R. No. L-4681
THE FACTS:
The petitioners contest the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge to issue the order
herein sought to be reviewed directing them to deliver to the administrator of the
intestate estate of Marcelo de Borja, a certain parcel of land which is in petitioners'
possession and to which they assert exclusive ownership. It appears that in the aboveentitled intestate estate, thecommissioners appointed by the court submitted a project
of partition, in which the land in question, which was in the possession of petitioners,
surviving children of Quintin de Borja who was one of Marcelo's children, was included
as property of the estate and assigned to one Miguel B. Dayco,one of Marcelo de Borja's
heirs. Over the objection of the petitioners, the proposed partition was approved in
February,1946, and the order of approval on appeal was affirmed by this Court in 1949.

THE ISSUE:
Whether or Not herein petitioners can question the validity of partition entered
into and already approved by the court.

THE COURTS RULING:

No. The partition here had not only been approved andthus become a judgment
of the court, but distribution of theestate in pursuance of the partition had been fully
carried out except as to land now in dispute, and the petitioners had received the
property assigned to them or their father'sestate. The court had only the partition to
examine, to see if the questioned land was included therein. The inclusion being shown,
and there being no allegation that the inclusion waseffected through improper means
or without the petitioners'knowledge, the partition barred any further litigation
on said title and operated to bring the property under the control and
jurisdiction of the court for proper disposition according to the tenor of
the partition.

The petitioners are in estoppel. In the face of what they havedone, they are
precluded from attacking the validity of thepartition or any part of it. A party can not,
in law and in goodconscience, be allowed to reap the fruits of a partition,agreement or
judgment and repudiate what does not suit him.

FE D. QUITA, petitioner, vs. COURT

BLANDINA DANDAN, respondent.
G.R. No. 124862

OF

APPEALS

and

THE FACTS:
Fe D. Quita, the petitioner, and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in
the Philippines on May 18, 1941. They got divorce in San Francisco on July 23, 1954.
Both of them remarried another person. Arturo remarried Bladina Dandan, the
respondent herewith. They were blessed with six children.
On April 16, 1972, when Arturo died, the trial court was set to declared as to who
will be the intestate heirs. The trial court held that the divorce acquired by the petitioner
is not recognized in our country. Private respondent stressed that the citizenship of
petitioner was relevant where aliens who obtain divorce abroad are recognized in the
Philippines provided they are valid according to their national law.
Subsequently, the Trial court disregarded the respondents statement. The net
hereditary estate was ordered in favor the Fe D. Quita and Ruperto, the brother of
Arturo. Blandina and the Padlan children moved for reconsideration. On February 15,
1988 partial reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children, with the
exception of Alexis, entitled to one-half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan,
and the other half to Fe Quita. Private respondent was not declared an heir, for her
marriage to Arturo was declared void since it was celebrated during the existence of his
previous marriage to petitioner. In their appeal to the Court of Appeals, Blandina and
her children assigned as one of the errors allegedly committed by the trial court the
circumstance that the case was decided without a hearing, in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 90,
of the Rules of Court.

THE ISSUE:

Should this case be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings?

THE COURTS RULING:

Yes. The act of the Court of Appeals remanding the case to the trial court is
proper.
Here, petitioner insists that there is no need because, first, no legal or factual
issue obtains for resolution either as to the heirship of the Padlan children or as to their
respective shares in the intestate estate of the decedent; and, second, the issue as to who
between petitioner and private respondent is the proper heir of the decedent is one of
law which can be resolved in the present petition based on established facts and
admissions of the parties.
SUPREME COURT: We cannot sustain petitioner. The provision relied upon by
respondent court is clear: If there is a controversy before the court as to who are
the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each
person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in
ordinary cases.