Facts:

The case involves the intestate estate of Jacinto Baun, with Simplicio Baun serving as the administrator and appellee. The appeal arises from an order issued by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac on September 12, 1928, which upheld the validity of a sale conducted by the administrator of a parcel of land, including machinery and buildings, belonging to the estate. The administrator sought court approval to sell the estate's properties on May 31, 1928, citing debts owed to the Asociacion Cooperatives del Credito Rural de Tarlac amounting to P1,000 and to Manuel Urquico totaling P7,412.22, with claims that the estate lacked sufficient funds to settle these debts. On June 1, 1928, all heirs except Damiana Manankil, the widow of the deceased, consented to the proposed sale, which was deemed beneficial as Genara Pineda offered P20,000 for the property. The court appointed Jose P. Fausto as guardian ad litem for the minor heirs and subsequently authorized the sale on June 29...

Facts:

Background of the Estate and Debts

• The decedent, Jacinto Baun, left an intestate estate burdened with significant obligations.
• The estate was indebted to:

- the Asociacion Cooperatives del Credito Rural de Tarlac for P1,000 with 10% interest from February 11, 1925, and - Manuel Urquico for P7,412.22 with 12% interest from November 1, 1927.

Initiation of the Sale Process

• On May 31, 1928, the administrator filed a motion seeking authority to sell both personal and real properties to settle the debts.
• The motion detailed the estate’s indebtedness and emphasized the necessity of the sale to prevent complete exhaustion of the estate’s assets.
• The application was based on the current insufficiency of liquid assets and the rapid accrual of interest that could potentially deplete the estate entirely.

Consent and Participation by the Heirs

• On June 1, 1928, all heirs except for Damiana Manankil—the widow of Jacinto Baun—submitted their written consent to a proposed sale of the sole real property (a parcel of land with machinery and building).
• The written consent, signed by representatives such as Alejandro Calma (also as guardian for minors Guillermo and Simeona Calma) and Celedonia Baun (with her husband’s consent), endorsed an offer by Genara Pineda for P20,000.
• On June 15, 1928, a guardian ad litem, Jose P. Fausto, was appointed for the minor heirs to review and report on the proposed sale.
• His subsequent report recommended favorably the sale of the property at the price offered.

Court Proceedings and Authorization of the Sale

• On June 29, 1928, the Court of First Instance of Tarlac authorized the administrator to sell the estate’s properties “in the form that he deemed most advantageous” to satisfy the estate’s debts.
• Following this, on July 6, 1928, the administrator filed a petition seeking judicial approval to sell the real property to Pedro Santos for P22,000, a higher amount than the earlier offer.
• The sale was approved on July 7, 1928, and Pedro Santos was ordered to deliver the selling price promptly.

Opposition by the Heirs and Subsequent Motion

• On July 16, 1928, the heirs (opponents) filed a motion to set aside both the court’s sale order and the sale itself.
• Their opposition was based on several grounds, including:

- The administrator having sold the real property before selling the personal property. - The lack of written consent from Damiana Manankil, the widow and heir. - The failure to provide proper notice (personally or via publication) as required by section 722, paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. - The absence of a hearing regarding the administrator’s application.

Administrator’s Defense and Lower Court’s Order

• The administrator contended that:

- The sale of the real property was necessary because of the insufficiency of personal property to satisfy the debts. - The written consent of the majority of heirs rendered further notice or consent unnecessary. - The law did not mandate unanimous written consent. - The urgency and necessity in liquidating assets to prevent the estate’s complete depletion. - The practical advantage of realizing a better selling price that ultimately allowed for proper payment of debts.

Appeal and the Central Proposition on Procedural Irregularity

• The heirs appealed the lower court’s decision, arguing procedural defects in the sale.
• One core proposition was that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (specifically sections 714 and 722) regarding the sale of a decedent's property were not complied with.
• The appellants stressed that:

- The written consent and approbation of all heirs (including the absent consent of Damiana Manankil) were mandatory. - The procedural requirements for notice and a hearing were not met, rendering the sale null and void.

Issue:

Compliance with Statutory Requirements

• Did the administrator secure the mandatory written consent and approbation of all heirs as required under sections 714 and 722 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
• Was proper notice given and a hearing conducted in accordance with the procedural mandates of the law?

Validity of Majority Consent

• Can the written consent of the majority of the heirs (excluding the dissenting widow) be deemed sufficient to validate the sale?
• Does the failure to obtain consent from every single interested party automatically nullify the sale?

Authority and Estoppel Arguments

• Can the administrator’s action be justified on the ground of acting in the best interest of the estate despite the lack of complete consent?
• Is the appellant’s contention that the alleged non-compliance should be estopped by the subsequent actions of the heirs (deposit and acceptance of the sale price) sustainable under law?

Jurisdictional and Procedural Considerations

• If the formalities dictated by the relevant sections were not strictly observed, does the court have jurisdiction to validate the sale?
• Is strict adherence to the prescribed procedure essential, regardless of the practical benefits or the eventual settlement of debts?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)