Facts:

The case involves Benito M. Arcilla and several other petitioners against Pablo Angeles David, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, and others as respondents. The events leading to the case began with the intestate proceedings of Amada Hilario, where Benito M. Arcilla was appointed as the administrator of her estate. On December 6, 1943, Judge David issued an order allowing the sale of certain properties—specifically lots Nos. 822 and 892, and 4/9 of lot No. 583, located in Angeles, Pampanga—to Marciana Escoto, the administratrix of the estate of Manuel Tan Cungco, for the sum of P6,750. This order was issued without the required petition from the administrator of Amada Hilario's estate, as mandated by Section 7 of Rule 90 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the court did not set a time and place for a hearing, nor did it declare that the sale was necessary or beneficial.

On February 29, 1944, another order was issued by the same judge, directing Arcil...

Facts:

Background of the Estate and Proceedings

• The case involves the estate of Amada Hilario, with proceedings instituted as Special Proceedings No. 6976 in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga.
• Petitioners, comprising Benito M. Arcilla and others, sought to annul two orders issued by Judge Pablo Angeles David on December 6, 1943, and February 29, 1944.
• The disputed orders related to the sale of specific real properties (lots Nos. 822, 892, and 4/9 of lot No. 583) registered under Transfer Certificates Nos. 9379, 9380, and Original Certificate No. 360 respectively.

The Orders and Motions

• On December 6, 1943, upon a motion filed by Marciana Escoto (administratrix of the estate of Manuel Tan Cungco), the judge authorized the administrator of the intestate estate of Amada Hilario, Benito M. Arcilla, to sell the properties for the amount of P6,750.00 within ten days.
• On February 29, 1944, following another motion by the same administratrix, the judge ordered Benito M. Arcilla to execute a deed of sale in favor of the intestate estate of Manuel Tan Cungco.
• It was noted that a deposit of P6,750.00 had been made with the clerk of court by Marciana Escoto as the sale consideration.

Procedural Irregularities and Compliance with Court Rules

• Petitioners challenged the validity of the orders on the ground that they contravened:
• Section 7 of Rule 90 – requiring the filing of a written petition, fixation of time and place for hearing, and declaration of necessity or benefit of the sale.
• Section 5 of Rule 26 – which mandates proper notification to interested or concerned parties regarding the hearing of such motions.
• Specific allegations included:
• The administrator, Benito M. Arcilla, did not file the petition as required under subsection (a) of Section 7, Rule 90.
• The court failed to fix and announce the time and place for the hearing, as required under subsection (b) of the rule.
• The sale order lacked a declaration stating that the sale was necessary or beneficial.
• The legitimate children and legal heirs of the deceased, notably seven out of eight petitioners, were not notified of the motion or the subsequent order, thereby denying them the opportunity to be heard.

Contractual Background and Earlier Motions

• Prior to the December 1943 and February 1944 orders, there existed a contractual arrangement evidenced by a deed of convention executed on February 10, 1941, between Benito M. Arcilla (as administrator and curador ad litem for minor children) and Manuel Tan Cungco.
• In August 1941, Benito M. Arcilla, through his lawyer, sought authorization for the sale of the properties, which initially received the consent of some minor heirs during a hearing.
• However, despite this earlier petition and even after an order favorable to the sale, procedural issues emerged when Marciana Escoto filed her motion on November 3, 1943, without notifying Artemio Hilario, the designated curador ad litem for the minor heirs.

Historical and Contextual Considerations

• The case took place during a tumultuous period in the Philippines marked by the Japanese invasion and significant economic changes.
• There were claims by petitioners regarding the current appraised value of the properties (increasing to approximately P20,000.00) compared to the originally agreed sale price of P6,750.00, highlighting further dispute over the adequacy and fairness of the sale conditions.

Issue:

Jurisdictional and Procedural Questions

• Whether the orders issued by Judge Angeles David violated Section 7 of Rule 90 by not requiring the proper filing of a petition, not setting a proper hearing schedule, and not declaring the sale to be necessary or beneficial.
• Whether the failure to notify the legitimate children and legal heirs of the decedent, as mandated by Section 5 of Rule 26, rendered the sale orders null and void.

Substantive Impact on Interested Parties

• Whether the lack of notification to the minor heirs, who are represented by their curador ad litem, undermined their constitutional right to due process and an opportunity to be heard before being bound by a judicial sale order.
• Whether the alleged technical replication of an earlier petition could justify dispensing with the strict requirements of the rules regarding notice and hearing.

Equity and Good Faith Considerations

• Whether the actions of the administratrix, in not notifying all interested parties and in filing motions merely as continuations of previous petitions, constituted bad faith or judicial usurpation.
• Whether the remedial action should be to nullify the orders despite the subsequent deposit made by the administratrix as evidence of her commitment to the sale terms.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)