VDA. DE VALERA vs.

OFILADA

G.R. No. L-27526 September 12, 1974

FACTS: Virgilio Valera, was the administrator of the estate died and was survived by his widow and their
ten (10) children, all petitioners.Respondent Adoracion Valera Bringas who claims to be an
acknowledged natural child of Francisco Valera, was appointed administratrix. She filed a petition in the
intestate proceeding that the petitioners to pay P100.00" as monthly rental for the one-third pro-
indiviso portion of the Valera residence. The petition was not served on the widow and ten children of
Virgilio Valera. Celso Valera interposed an opposition to it. The lower court granted the petition. Ofilada
denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the heirs of Virgilio Valera and directed the motion for
execution. The sheriff levied upon the properties of petioners.

ISSUE: whetheror not the lower court, sitting as a probate court in the intestate proceeding can issue
writ of execution.

RULING. No. The probate court generally cannot issue a writ of execution. It is not supposed to issue a
writ of execution because its orders usually refer to the adjudication of claims against the estate which
the executor or administrator may satisfy without the necessity of resorting to a writ of execution. The
probate court, as such, does not render any judgment enforceable by execution.

The circumstance that the Rules of Court expressly specifies that the probate court may issue execution
(a) to satisfy the contributive shares of devisees, legatees and heirs in possession of the decedent's
assets (Sec. 6, Rule 88), (b) to enforce payment of the expenses of partition (Sec. 3, Rule 90), and (e) to
satisfy the costs when a person is cited for examination in probate proceedings (Sec. 13, Rule 142) may
mean, under the rule of inclusion unius est exclusion alterius, that those are the only instances when it
can issue a writ of execution. The writ of execution and the Sheriff's execution sale are declared void
and are set aside.

DOLORES B. GUICO, ET AL. vs. PABLO G. BAUTISTA, ET. AL.,

G.R. No. L-14921 December 31, 1960

FACTS:
Mariano G. Bautista and Gertrudes Garcia died intestate. The former’s properties had already
been extrajudicially partitioned among his heirs. Gertrudes Garcia left as her legitimate heirs
plaintiffs (their grandchildren) and defendants (their children). Gertrudes Garcia, during her
lifetime, made several deeds of donation of some of her properties in favor of all the
defendants, but did not provide that the properties donated would not be subject to collation,
so that the donees are legally bound to bring into the mass of the estate by way of collation the
value of the properties received by them in order that the net hereditary estate may be divided
equally among the heirs. Gertrudes left outstanding obligations to the Rehabilitation Finance
Corporation and the G.A. Machineries, Inc.

Plaintiffs filed an action for liquidation and partition of the estate.

Defendants moved to dismiss the action alleging that it is prematurely filed because it is
admitted in the complaint that the deceased left certain debts.

ISSUE:
WON the action for partition and liquidation may be maintained, notwithstanding that there
are pending obligations of the estate

HELD:
NO. The Supreme Court is inclined to hold at the lower court that until all the debts of the
estate in question are paid, appellants' action for partition and liquidation is premature.

The law allows the partition of the estate of a deceased person by the heirs, extrajudicially or
through an ordinary action for petition, without the filing of a special proceeding and the
appointment of an administrator for the purpose of the settlement of said estate if the
decedent left no debts and the heirs and legatees are all of age or the minors are represented
by their judicial guardians (sec. 1, Rule 74). The situation is different where the deceased left
pending obligations. In such cases, such obligations must be first paid or compounded with the
creditors before the estate can be divided among the heirs; and unless they reach an amicable
settlement as to how such obligations should be settled, the estate would inevitably be
submitted to administration for the payment of such debts.

Appellants propose that the administration of the estate for the purpose of paying off its debts
be accomplished right in this partition. Obviously, an ordinary action for partition cannot be
converted into a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a deceased, without compliance
with the procedure outlined by Rules 79-90 of the rules of Court, especially the provisions on
publication and notice to creditors.

Hernandez v. Andal
G.R. No. L-273, March 29, 1947

Cresencia, Maria, Aquilina, Pedro and Basilia Hernandez are brother and sisters, who acquired
in common a parcel of land from their deceased father. Maria and Aquilina sold to the spouses
Andal a portion thereof, which they purport to be their combined shares by virtue of a verbal
partition made among the siblings Hernandez. After the sale, Cresencia attempted to
repurchase the land sold to Andal but the latter refused to sell the same. Later, Andal resold the
same to Maria and Aquilina. Maria and Aquilina alleged that there had been an oral partition
among them and their brother and sisters, and that there are witnesses ready to prove such
partition. However, Cresencia asserted that under the Rules of Court, parol evidence of
partition is inadmissible.

ISSUE: Whether or not oral evidence is admissible in proving a contract of partition among
heirs.

As a general proposition, transactions, so far as they affect the parties, are required to be
reduced to writing either as a condition of jural validity or as a means of providing evidence to
prove the transactions. Written form exacted by the statute of frauds, for example, “is for
evidential purposes only.” The Civil Code, too, requires the accomplishment of acts or contracts
in a public instrument, not in order to validate the act or contract but only
to insure its efficacy so that after the existence of the acts or contracts has been admitted, the
party bound may be compelled to execute the document. It must be noted that where the law
intends a writing or other formality to be the essential requisite to the validity of the
transactions it says so in clear and unequivocal terms. Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court
contains no such express or clear declaration that the required public instruments is to be
constitutive of a contract of partition or an inherent element of its effectiveness as between the
parties. The requirement that a partition be put in a public document and registered has for its
purpose the protection of creditors and at the same time the protection of the heirs themselves
against tardy claims. The object of registration is to serve as constructive notice. It must follow
that the intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the prescribed formalities does not
come into play when, as in this case, there are no creditors or the rights of creditors are not
affected. No rights of creditors being involved, it is competent for the heirs of an estate to enter
into an agreement for distribution in a manner and upon a plan different from those provided
by law. Judgment reversed.

VDA. DE RODRIGUEZ v Tan

G.R. No. L-6044, November 24, 1952

Facts: Flaviano Rodriguez died leaving estate with a value of 10,000.00. His heirs were his
widow and six other children, who were all at age, the petitioners, entered into a verbal
agreement whereby they agreed not to make a liquidation of the estate but to place it under
the administration of the widow. Respondent Abelardo Rodriguez filed a petition for
administration of their intestate estate of said deceased in spite of his knowledge that the
estate had no debts and all the heirs were of age. Petitioners herein, objected to the petition
invoking the rule that if the estate is free from obligations and the heirs are all of age, no
administration proceedings shall be allowed. The respondent Judge, after overruling the
opposition, appointed Abelardo Rodriguez administrator of the estate upon filing the requisite
bond.

Issue: whether or not respondent Judge acted properly in maintaining the administration
proceedings and in appointing Abelardo Rodriguez as administrator of the estate.

Ruling: Yes. Under section 1, rule 74 of the Rules of Court, if the decedent left no debts and the
heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial guardians, the parties may,
without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit,
and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. It, therefore,
appears from said section 1 that when the estate has no pending obligations to be paid, his
heirs, whether of age or not, are not bound to submit the property to a judicial administration
for the reason that it is superfluous or unnecessary, and in most cases long and costly, in which
case the way left to the heirs is to divide the estate among themselves as they may see fit, and
should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. The court said that
section 1 does not preclude the heirs from instituting administration proceedings, even if the
estate has no debts or obligations, if they do not desire to resort for good reasons to an
ordinary action of partition. While section 1 allows the heirs to divide the estate among
themselves as they may see fit, or to resort to an ordinary action of partition, it does not
compel them to do so if they have good reasons to take a different course of action. Said
section is not mandatory or compulsory as may be gleaned from the use made therein of the
word may. The petition is dismissed.