Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21725)
Facts:
Aurelio Arcillas v. Hon. Gregorio D. Montejo, G.R. No. L-21725, November 29, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Makalintal, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arises from Lot No. 276 (Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-244), a major part of the estate of the late Eustaquio Arcillas, who died intestate on March 8, 1958, in Zamboanga City. On November 12, 1962 Geronimo Arcillas filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga seeking cancellation of TCT No. RT-244 and issuance of a new certificate of title reflecting the shares of the heirs, invoking Section 112 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act). The petition alleged various transactions, including separate sales by four children to co-heir Vicente Arcillas, and sought summary relief under the cadastral provision.
On November 16, 1962 five other children of the deceased filed Special Proceeding No. 632, praying for issuance of letters of administration in favor of petitioner Aurelio Arcillas to enable final settlement of the estate; that petition averred the estate consisted of real property valued at not less than P6,000 and that, so far as petitioners knew, there were no unpaid debts. On November 23, 1962 Aurelio opposed the November 12 cadastral petition, arguing that the matter was included in the pending administration petition and asking that the cadastral motion be held in abeyance. The trial judge issued an order on December 1, 1962 temporarily holding the cadastral motion in abeyance pending termination of the intestate proceedings.
In the administration proceeding, Geronimo (joined by Vicente and the widow Modesta Alfaro) opposed appointment of Aurelio as administrator on the ground that administration was unnecessary because Lot No. 276 was the only property and there were no debts; Aurelio replied on January 18, 1963 that other properties existed, that there was no unanimity among heirs for extrajudicial partition, and that some heirs had been unduly deprived of participation. On March 8, 1963 the court denied the petition for letters of administration (Special Proceeding No. 632) and instead gave due course to the November 12 cadastral petition, reasoning that Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court allowed extrajudicial settlement and that denying the cadastral motion would avoid needless expenses and expedite partition.
Aurelio filed a petition for certiorari with mandamus and preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the trial court’s order denying administration proceedings and granting the cadastral motion. Upon filing bond, the Court on December 2, 1963 issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the trial judge from proceeding with the hearing of the cadastral motion of November 12, 1962. The petition for certiorari raised, inter alia, whether the trial judge erred in (1) dismissing the administration proceedings under Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court and (2) treating the cadastral petition under Section 112 of Act No. 496 as the proper remedy.
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in denying the petition for letters of administration under the authority of Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court when the decedent allegedly left no debts and the heirs were all of age?
- Was the trial court correct in giving due course to the cadastral motion under Section 112 of Act No. 496 and treating it as the more proper proceeding under the circumstances?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)