G.R. No. 122166 - Llorente, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan

On June 11, 1910, Damasa Alcala (plaintiff and appellee) presented a petition before the Court of First Instance of La Laguna seeking her appointment as administratrix of a specific property described in paragraph 4 of her petition.
Subsequently, the lower court appointed her as administratrix, prompting defendants to file an appeal with several assignments of error.

Juan Banatin died on April 23, 1897, leaving behind a widow (Damasa Alcala), the plaintiff herein, and seventeen nieces and nephews (whose names were listed in the petition).
The familial relations and the number of heirs were pivotal in addressing the subsequent division and management of the property.

On June 13, 1897, the widow and seventeen of the nieces and nephews (except Tranquilina Banatin) voluntarily agreed among themselves to divide the entire estate of Juan Banatin, except for the house described in paragraph 4 of the petition.
By the terms of this agreement:

The house was to remain undivided.
Damasa Alcala was to receive one-half of the usufruct of the house for her lifetime.
The remaining one-half of the usufruct was to be equally distributed among the seventeen other heirs.

Francisco Salgado, one of the nephews, was designated to administer the said house, collect the rents, and render a payment split equally between Damasa Alcala and the other heirs.

Francisco Salgado failed to deliver Damasa Alcala’s share from the rents collected, prompting a lawsuit which resulted in a judgment against him.
An execution was issued against him, and in 1907, one-half of the undivided property was sold to Macario Decena.
On October 22 and 24, 1908, the heirs of Francisco Salgado repurchased the sold one-half using funds contributed by four specific heirs: Modesta Pabalan, Procopio Pabalan, Basilio Salgado, and Juan Banay-banay.

On November 25, 1908, a public document executed by thirteen heirs recognized the right of the four heirs (Modesta Pabalan, Procopio Pabalan, Basilio Salgado, and Juan Banay-banay) as owners of the repurchased one-half of the property.
On the same date, another public document executed by sixteen of the heirs unanimously appointed Modesta Pabalan as the administratrix of the entire house, replacing the deceased Francisco Salgado.
Modesta Pabalan subsequently administered the property, collected rents, and duly paid one-half of the rents to Damasa Alcala in her capacity as the usufructuary of that portion of the property.

Damasa Alcala asserted that the lower court erred in assuming that the testamentary process (or administration) of Juan Banatin was still ongoing.
It was argued that, following the mutual agreement among the heirs for the division of the estate—even if some property remained undivided—the property had ceased to be part of the estate and had become the undivided property of the heirs as tenants in common.

Whether the property in question was still part of the estate of Juan Banatin or had been effectively divided and vested in the heirs as tenants in common.

Whether the lower court was justified in appointing Damasa Alcala as administratrix, given that the property might no longer be under administration as part of the decedent’s estate.
Whether the probate court had jurisdiction to appoint an administrator when the heirs had already agreed among themselves regarding the division and management of the property.

Whether the rights of the usufructuary (Damasa Alcala’s right to the one-half usufruct) had any bearing on the management or administrative appointment of the property.
Although this issue was raised, it was not given detailed discussion as it was deemed not central to the immediate determination.