BENATIRO vs CUYOS

G.R. No. 161220 July 30, 2008

RULE 74 - SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
Facts:
Evaristo Cuyos died leaving six parcels of land located in Cebu covered by Tax Declarations under the
name of Agatona Aragante Cuyos, the wife of Evaristo. One of the heirs, Gloria Cuyos Talian filed a
petition for letters of administration which was opposed by Glorias brother. In the hearing, both
counsels manifested that the parties had come to an agreement to settle their case. The
commissioners report stated that the heirs agreed not to partition the properties but instead agreed
to sell it for the sum of 40,000 pesos and divide the proceeds equally. Columba Cuyos Benatiro, one of
the heirs informed all those present her desire to buy the properties which everybody agreed.
Respondent heirs filed a petition for annulment of the order, the same being null and void and of no
effect and that the commissioners report was patently false and irregular. The CA granted the
petition.
Issue:
1. Whether or not heirs were deemed constructively notified and bound by extrajudicial settlement
and partition regardless of their failure to participate.
2. Whether or not the commissioners report denies the right of the heirs to due process.

Held:
1. The court ruled in the negative. The ruling of the Supreme Court with regards to the case of Cua vs.
Vargas was applied. What matters is whether the heirs were notified before the compromise
agreement was arrived at, which was not established and not whether they were notified by
commissioners 13report embodying the alleged agreement afterwards.

2. Yes, the commissioners report was doubtful. There was no evidence showing that the heirs indeed
convened for the purpose of arriving at an agreement regarding the estate properties, since they
were not even required to sign anything to show the attendance of the alleged meetings. The
commissioners report, which embodied the alleged agreement of the heirs did not bear the
signatures of the alleged attendees to show their consent and conformity thereto. It was imperative
that all heirs must be present in the conference and be heard to afford them the opportunity to
protect their interests. The CFI adopted and approved the report despite the absence of the
signatures of all the heirs showing conformity thereto. The CFIs order based on a void commissioners
report is a void judgement for lack of due process. Such order being null and void may be assailed
anytime. The respondent right to due process is the paramount consideration in annulling the assailed
order.