Facts:

The case of Alejandro Baldemor, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Benedicto Bonot, Deceased, vs. Eusebia Malangyaon, Henrico Bonot, and Clara Falcon, was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 24, 1916. The action was initiated by Alejandro Baldemor, who sought to recover possession of certain real and personal properties that were part of the estate of the deceased Benedicto Bonot. The defendants, Eusebia Malangyaon, Henrico Bonot, and Clara Falcon, claimed to be the legitimate heirs of Benedicto Bonot and asserted that they had already mutually divided the estate among themselves prior to the commencement of the action. They contended that there were no outstanding debts against the estate and that Baldemor lacked the authority to pursue the case. The defendants supported their claims with Exhibit A, which documented their mutual division of the estate. The lower court, presided over by Judge Percy M. Moir, concluded that Baldemor did not have the ...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff and Appellant: Alejandro Baldemor, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Benedicto Bonot (deceased).
   • Defendants and Appellees: Eusebia Malangyaon, Henrico Bonot, and Clara Falcon.

2. Subject Matter:

   • The action was brought to recover possession of certain real and personal property described in the complaint.

3. Defendants' Claims:

   • The defendants are the legitimate descendants of Benedicto Bonot.
   • They are all of lawful age.
   • They had mutually divided the estate of Benedicto Bonot among themselves prior to the commencement of the action.
   • There are no debts against the estate.
   • The plaintiff lacks authority to maintain the action.

4. Procedural History:

   • The trial court dismissed the complaint, absolving the defendants from liability.
   • The plaintiff appealed the decision.
   • The case was submitted to the lower court based on the pleadings, with no additional proof adduced during the trial.

Issue:

1. Whether the special administrator (plaintiff) has the right to maintain an action to recover possession of property that the heirs have already mutually divided among themselves.
2. Whether the heirs, being of lawful age and with no debts against the estate, can validly partition the estate without court intervention.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)