Facts:

The case involves Maria Socorro Avelino (petitioner) against the Court of Appeals and several private respondents, including Angelina Avelino and her siblings—Sharon, Antonio Jr., Tracy, Patrick Michael, and Mark Anthony Avelino. The dispute centers around the estate of the late Antonio Avelino, Sr., who died intestate on April 10, 1989. Maria Socorro, a compulsory heir, filed a petition for letters of administration in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 78 (SP Proc. No. Q-91-10441) on October 24, 1991, seeking to be appointed as the estate's administrator. On December 3, 1992, Angelina Avelino, along with the other siblings, opposed this petition by moving to convert the proceedings into a judicial partition, to which Maria Socorro objected. The trial court, however, issued an order on February 16, 1993, converting the proceedings to judicial partition, emphasizing that Maria Socorro was the only heir not amenable to a simple partition and noting the other heir

...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Maria Socorro Avelino, the daughter and compulsory heir of the late Antonio Avelino, Sr.
• Private Respondents:
• Angelina Avelino, petitioner’s mother and a compulsory heir.
• Other compulsory heirs including Sharon, Antonio Jr., Tracy, Patrick Michael, and Mark Anthony Avelino, who are siblings of the petitioner.

Initiation of the Legal Proceedings

• October 24, 1991:
• Petitioner filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 78, seeking the issuance of letters of administration for the estate of Antonio Avelino, Sr., who died intestate on April 10, 1989.
• The petition was intended to appoint her as the administrator of the decedent’s estate.
• December 3, 1992:
• Angelina and the siblings of the petitioner filed their opposition.
• They did so by moving to convert the petition for letters of administration into an action for judicial partition, aiming at an expeditious settlement of the estate.

Judicial Proceedings and Orders

• February 16, 1993:
• The RTC issued an order converting the petition into judicial partition proceedings.
• The order directed the submission of a complete inventory of real and personal properties and set a hearing for partition on April 13, 1993.
• March 17, 1993:
• Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s decision.
• The motion was denied on June 16, 1993.
• July 23, 1993:
• Petitioner elevated her case to the Court of Appeals (CA) by filing a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
• She alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in converting the letters of administration proceeding to an action for judicial partition.
• February 18, 1994:
• The CA rendered its decision dismissing the petition, stating that the petition was "DENIED DUE COURSE."
• March 1, 1994:
• Petitioner moved for reconsideration before the CA, insisting on her contention.
• This motion was also denied on April 28, 1994.

Arguments and Contentions Raised

• Petitioner’s Main Arguments:
• Contended that no partition should be allowed until the complete determination of the character and extent of the decedent’s estate.
• Argued that administration should be the proper remedy to safeguard the estate from depletion due to absence of an administrator.
• Maintained that there was no legal basis within the Rules of Court for converting a petition for letters of administration into an action for judicial partition.
• Respondents’ Position:
• Asserted that all heirs were of legal age and that the decedent left no debts, thus favoring a quick and expeditious settlement through partition.
• Legal Basis Referred:
• Discussion of Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, which permits extrajudicial settlement and partition by agreement among heirs, provided there are no debts.
• Cited precedents (e.g., Arcilles v. Montejo) to justify that administration need not precede partition when the existence or extent of the estate is still subject to verification.

Issue:

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred by upholding the trial court’s conversion of the petitioner’s petition for letters of administration into an action for judicial partition.
• Whether judicial partition is an appropriate remedy in a case where the complete character and extent of the decedent’s estate have yet to be determined.
• Whether the conversion therein is procedurally and legally sound under the Rules of Court, in light of the contention that administration should be the proper course of action in an intestate estate with undetermined assets.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)