Facts:

The case involves Sinforoso Buenaventura, the administrator of the estate of Juan Buenaventura, deceased, and Timoteo del Rosario as petitioners and appellees, against Tomas B. Ramos and others as defendants and appellants. The events began on January 4, 1921, when Sinforoso Buenaventura filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, seeking permission to sell a fishery belonging to the estate of Juan Buenaventura. The petition claimed that the fishery was in poor condition, the estate lacked funds for necessary repairs, and the numerous heirs were financially incapable of addressing the repairs. On February 5, 1921, the heirs opposed the administrator's motion. The court denied the petition on February 7, 1921, citing several reasons: the absence of a report from the appointed commissioners for the estate inventory, a pending action against a tenant of the fishery, and the lack of an inventory to ascertain the fishery's value. The administrator renewed t...

Facts:

Filing of the Petition and Initial Allegations

• On January 4, 1921, Sinforoso Buenaventura, acting as administrator of the estate of Juan Buenaventura, deceased, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Bulacan.
• The petition sought permission to sell a fishery belonging to the deceased’s estate, alleging that:
• The fishery was in bad condition and in need of repairs.
• The estate lacked sufficient funds for the necessary repairs.
• The heirs were numerous, poor, and without adequate resources.
• The sale was necessary to generate funds for repairing the fishery and to facilitate the equitable partition of the estate among the heirs.

Opposition by the Heirs

• On February 5, 1921, the heirs formally opposed the petition filed by the administrator.
• The opposition was reiterated on February 24, 1921 when the petition was renewed by the administrator on February 21, 1921.

Initial Court Proceedings and Denial of the Petition

• On February 7, 1921, the court denied the petition for several reasons:
• The appointed commissioners had not rendered their report for an inventory of the estate.
• An action pending against Santos Chua Hong, the tenant of the fishery, could potentially provide funds if resolved favorably.
• Without an inventory, the court could not fix the fishery’s value.
• The possibility existed that funds from the pending case could suffice for the repairs.

Order Granting Permission to Sell

• Despite the strong opposition, on March 2, 1921, Judge Bartolome Revilla granted the renewed petition, authorizing the administrator to offer the fishery for sale.
• The order included the condition that the sale should not be consummated until the administrator had reported the offers received to the court and obtained its confirmation.

Offers and Sale Confirmation

• On March 15, 1921, the administrator reported two offers:
• P10,500 from Dr. Juan Nolasco.
• P11,000 from Timoteo del Rosario, which was recommended for acceptance.
• On March 30, 1921, in spite of further opposition from the defendants and heirs, the court confirmed the sale in favor of Timoteo del Rosario.

Exception, Motion for Reconsideration, and Subsequent Appeal

• Defendants raised an exception on March 14, 1921, claiming the sale order was illegal and contrary to sections 714, 716, 717, and 718 of Act No. 190, as well as being against the wishes of the heirs.
• A motion for reconsideration was filed and subsequently denied on April 8, 1921.
• An appeal was duly taken, and the record was received in the Supreme Court on September 12, 1921.
• Procedural issues arose regarding the appeal bond:
• On November 15, 1921, the appellees moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the bond was not perfected within the prescribed time.
• After several extensions to file briefs, a second motion to dismiss was filed on May 22, 1922, based on the late submission of the appeal bond.
• The Supreme Court held that a subsequent motion to dismiss based on issues already raised in the first motion should not be entertained unless permission to refile had been granted.
• Consequently, the second motion was denied.

Assignment of Errors by the Appellants

• The appellants contended that the lower court erred by authorizing the sale of the fishery against the clear written opposition of the heirs.
• They argued that the reasons provided for the sale did not legally justify it, particularly in view of sections 714 to 722 of Act No. 190.
• It was emphasized that the petition lacked any allegation of existing debts against the estate that would necessitate the sale under the statutory provisions.

Relevant Statutory Provisions and Their Application

• Sections 714 and 718 of Act No. 190 permit the sale of real property under two conditions:
• When necessary to pay debts and administration charges.
• When it would be beneficial to the heirs and interested parties, but only with their written consent.
• Section 717, governing the sale of personal property, does not require the heirs’ consent if the sale is to pay debts, legacies, or administrative expenses.
• Section 722 provides further regulations regarding the sale of property from an estate.
• The record evidences that there were no existing debts or obligations justifying the sale, and the administrator did not secure the necessary written consent of the heirs.

Issue:

Whether the lower court erred in authorizing the sale of the fishery despite:

• The opposing written dissent of the heirs, who were the immediate owners of the estate by operation of intestate succession.
• The lack of any showing that the sale was necessary to settle debts or obligations of the estate, as provided under sections 714 and 718 of Act No. 190.

Whether the procedural issue regarding the late presentation of the appeal bond and the subsequent second motion to dismiss should affect the disposition of the case:

• The proper application of rules concerning the expiration of the period for posting the appeal bond.
• The appropriateness of denying a second motion to dismiss based on issues that existed at the time of the first motion.

• Whether the statutory requirements for the sale of real property belonging to an estate, specifically the need for the written consent of the heirs, were followed in this case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)