Title
Buenaventura vs. Ramos
Case
G.R. No. L-18034
Decision Date
Sep 2, 1922
Estate administrator sought to sell fishery despite heirs' opposition; Supreme Court ruled sale unjustified, revoking lower court's decision due to lack of debts, heirs' consent, and legal necessity.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18034)

Facts:

  1. Petition for Sale of Fishery:
    On January 4, 1921, Sinforoso Buenaventura, as the administrator of the estate of Juan Buenaventura, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan seeking permission to sell a fishery owned by the estate. The petition argued that the fishery was in poor condition, the estate lacked funds for repairs, the heirs were poor and numerous, and the sale was necessary to divide the proceeds among the heirs.

  2. Opposition by Heirs:
    On February 5, 1921, the heirs of Juan Buenaventura opposed the petition. The court denied the petition on February 7, 1921, citing the following reasons:

    • No inventory report had been submitted by the commissioners.
    • A pending lawsuit against Santos Chua Hong, the tenant of the fishery, could potentially provide funds for repairs.
    • Without an inventory, the court could not determine the fishery's value.
  3. Renewed Petition and Further Opposition:
    On February 21, 1921, the administrator renewed the petition. The heirs again opposed it on February 24, 1921. Despite the opposition, Judge Bartolome Revilla granted the petition on March 2, 1921, authorizing the sale with the condition that it would not be finalized until the court confirmed the offers.

  4. Offers for the Fishery:
    On March 15, 1921, the administrator reported receiving two offers: P10,500 from Dr. Juan Nolasco and P11,000 from Timoteo del Rosario. The administrator recommended accepting del Rosario's offer. The heirs opposed the sale, but the court confirmed it on March 30, 1921.

  5. Appeal to the Supreme Court:
    The heirs appealed, arguing that the sale was illegal under Sections 714, 716, 717, and 718 of Act No. 190. They also contended that the reasons for the sale were insufficient and that all heirs opposed the sale except the administrator.

  6. Procedural Issues:
    The appellees (Buenaventura and del Rosario) filed motions to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the appeal bond was not filed within the required time. The Supreme Court denied the motions, ruling that a second motion to dismiss based on grounds existing at the time of the first motion should not be granted.

Issue:

  1. Whether the lower court erred in authorizing the sale of the fishery despite the opposition of the heirs.
  2. Whether the sale was justified under Sections 714 to 722 of Act No. 190.
  3. Whether the procedural motions to dismiss the appeal were properly denied by the Supreme Court.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants (heirs). It revoked the lower court's judgment authorizing the sale of the fishery and absolved the defendants from liability. The Court held that the sale was not justified under the law, as there were no debts or obligations against the estate requiring the sale, and the heirs had not given their written consent.

Ratio:

  1. Legal Requirements for Sale of Estate Property:
    Under Sections 714 to 722 of Act No. 190, an administrator may sell real estate of a deceased person only under two conditions:

    • To pay debts and charges against the estate, with the written consent of the heirs.
    • When the sale is beneficial to the heirs, again with their written consent.
  2. Absence of Debts or Obligations:
    The administrator failed to show any debts or obligations against the estate that necessitated the sale. The only reasons provided were the fishery's poor condition and the heirs' financial difficulties, which are insufficient under the law.

  3. Heirs' Ownership Rights:
    Under the Civil Code, heirs become absolute owners of the estate's property upon the death of the ancestor. In the absence of debts, the administrator has no authority to interfere with the heirs' property rights. The repair or improvement of the property is solely the heirs' responsibility.

  4. Procedural Motions:
    The Supreme Court denied the appellees' second motion to dismiss the appeal, as it was based on grounds that existed at the time of the first motion. The Court emphasized that subsequent motions to dismiss should not be granted unless permission was obtained to present them.

  5. Conclusion:
    The lower court erred in authorizing the sale without the heirs' written consent and without showing that the sale was necessary to pay debts or beneficial to the heirs. The Supreme Court revoked the sale and absolved the defendants from liability.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.