1.

Utulo v. Pasion Gr. 45904

Facts: The respondent `s husband died intestate, leaving the respondent and their legitimate children as
compulsory heirs; one of which died without leaving any heirs except her husband the petitioner.
The petitioner now contends that since he is entitled to the share of the intestate of the respondent`s
husband he should be named as the administrator.
While the respondent contends that since her husband left no indebtedness and that all heirs are of age,
there is no need for a judicial administration, but in the case the court shall name an administrator she has
a better right than the petitioner.

Issue: WON the case calls for a judicial administration.

Held: No, since the Code of Civil procedure provides that although judicial administration is the general
rule the same is not without exemption namely
1) When all the heirs are of lawful age
2) There are no debts due from the estate
Thus at the present case said intestate proceedings is exempted from instituting a judicial administration.

2.

Vda. De Reyes v. CA Gr. 92436

Facts: The ascendant of the petitioner owned a parcel of land, which was transferred to the petitioners; the
petitioners partitioned the said property amongst themselves albeit not deduced into writing.
One of the heirs sold his share of the property to the private respondent, the petitioners now claim that
since the same was never validly partitioned and was extrajudicial settled the said sale was allegedly void.
Issue: WON the sale was valid.
Held: Yes, since although not reduced into writing the said partition was valid;
The requirement that a partition should be deduced into writing and be made into a public document
was merely for the constructive notice to others, thus does not affect it`s validity.

And for argument that said property was never partitioned the same may still be sold as an undivided
claim/interest/share to the property.
Also discussed by the court is that an extrajudicial settlement does not create a right in favor of an heir.
Since it is but a confirmation or ratification of title or right to property.
And since at the present case the said property was sold the petitioner never had a right to speak of in the
first place.

3.

Sampilo v. CA Gr. 10474

Facts: The private respondent uncle died, leaving only the latter`s wife, nephews and nieces as heirs.
Subsequently the private respondent`s wife executed an affidavit of self-adjudicating claiming that she is
the sole heir, thus allowing her to sell the property of her husband to the petitioners.
Thus the private respondent is now claiming against the petitioners contending that said sale was void
insofar as to the excess of the share of the inheritance by the seller , since there are other heirs aside from
the seller.
While the petitioner contends that the cause of action of the private respondent has already prescribed as
per the 2 years prescription rule in extrajudicial partition.

Issue: WON the cause of action has prescribed.

Held: No, since the 2 year prescription rule in extrajudicial partition is only applicable to those heirs who
have participated or taken part or had notice of the extrajudicial partition.
Because extrajudicial settlement or by affidavit, is an ex parte proceeding. It cannot by any reason or logic
be contended that such settlement or distribution would affect third persons.

4.

Cua v. Vargas G.R. No. 156536

Facts: A parcel of residential land with an area of 99 square meters located in San Juan, Virac,
Catanduanes was left behind by the late Paulina Vargas. On February 4, 1994, a notarized Extra Judicial
Settlement Among Heirs was executed by and among Paulina Vargas' heirs, namely Ester Vargas,
Visitacion Vargas, Juan Vargas, Zenaida V. Matienzo, Rosario V. Forteza, Andres Vargas, Gloria Vargas,

Antonina Vargas and Florentino Vargas, partitioning and adjudicating unto themselves the lot in
question, each one of them getting a share of 11 square meters. Florentino, Andres, Antonina and Gloria,
however, did not sign the document. Only Ester, Visitacion, Juan, Zenaida and Rosario signed it. The
Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs was published in the Catanduanes Tribune for three consecutive
weeks.
On November 15, 1994, an Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs with Sale4 was again executed by and
among the same heirs over the same property and also with the same sharings. Once more, only Ester,
Visitacion, Juan, Zenaida and Rosario signed the document and their respective shares totaling 55 square
meters were sold to Joseph Cua, petitioner herein.
Respondents argue that said Extra Judicial Settlement cannot bind them for it was executed without their
consent and participation.
Issue: WON said Settlement would bind the respondents who did not give their consent?
Held: No. It would not bind them. The Supreme Court gave the following reason.
The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding. The rule plainly states, however,
that persons who do not participate or had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement will not be bound
thereby.18 It contemplates a notice that has been sent out or issued before any deed of settlement and/or
partition is agreed upon (i.e., a notice calling all interested parties to participate in the said deed of
extrajudicial settlement and partition), and not after such an agreement has already been executed 19 as
what happened in the instant case with the publication of the first deed of extrajudicial settlement among
heirs.

5.

Sps. Benatiro v. Heirs of Cuyos G.R. No. 161220

Facts: On July 13, 1971, one of the heirs, Gloria Cuyos-Talian (respondent Gloria) represented by Atty.
Victor Elliot Lepiten (Atty. Lepiten), filed before the Court of First Instance (CFI) now Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Cebu, Branch XI, a petition4 for Letters of Administration, docketed as Special Proceeding (SP) No.
24-BN entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Evaristo Cuyos, Gloria Cuyos-Talian, petitioner."
The petition was opposed by Glorias brother, Francisco, who was represented by Atty. Jesus Yray (Atty.
Yray).
In the hearing held on January 30, 1973, both parties together with their respective counsels appeared.
Both counsels manifested that the parties had come to an agreement to settle their case. The trial court on
even date issued an Order5 appointing Gloria as administratrix of the estate.
Subsequently, the respondents questioned the said Compromise Agreement for they did not give their
consent and participation.
The petitioners claimed that they were constructively notified through publication.

Issue: WON the said agreement is binding to the heirs who did not consent to the Agreement?
Held: No. Said agreement is not binding upon those heirs who did not give their consent to said
agreement. The Supreme Court held as follows:
We also find nothing in the records that would show that the heirs were called to a hearing to validate the
Report. The CFI adopted and approved the Report despite the absence of the signatures of all the heirs
showing conformity thereto. The CFI adopted the Report despite the statement therein that only six out of
the nine heirs attended the conference, thus, effectively depriving the other heirs of their chance to be
heard. The CFI's action was tantamount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee that no person shall
be deprived of property without due process of law. We find that the assailed Order dated December 16,
1976, which approved a void Commissioner's Report, is a void judgment for lack of due process.