Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23372)
Facts:
The case, filed under G.R. No. L-23372, revolved around the intestate estate of the late Pio Duran, who passed away on February 28, 1961, in Guinobatan, Albay. At the time of his death, his alleged heirs included his surviving spouse, Josefina Duran, as well as several siblings, nephews, and nieces. On June 2, 1962, Cipriano Duran, one of the surviving brothers, executed a public instrument that assigned and renounced his hereditary rights in favor of Josefina Duran for a consideration of P2,500. A year later, on June 8, 1963, Cipriano filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Albay for intestate proceedings to settle the estate of Pio Duran, seeking to be named the estate's administrator and also filing an application for a special administrator. On August 9, 1963, Josefina Duran submitted an opposition to Cipriano’s petition, claiming that Cipriano lacked the status of an "interested person" in the estate due to the previously executed deed of transfer.
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23372)
Facts:
- Background of the Decedent and Estate
- Pio Duran died intestate on February 28, 1961, in Guinobatan, Albay.
- His alleged heirs included his surviving spouse, Josefina Duran, as well as several brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces.
- Deed of Assignment and Renunciation by Cipriano Duran
- On June 2, 1962, Cipriano Duran, one of the decedent’s surviving brothers, executed a public instrument.
- Through this instrument, he assigned and renounced his hereditary rights in favor of Josefina Duran for the consideration of ₱2,500.00.
- Initiation of Settlement Proceedings
- On June 8, 1963, Cipriano Duran filed a petition for intestate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Albay seeking:
- The settlement of Pio Duran’s estate.
- His appointment as the estate’s administrator.
- He also filed an ex parte motion to be appointed as special administrator.
- Opposition and Counter-Motions
- On August 9, 1963, Josefina Duran filed an opposition to Cipriano’s petition.
- She argued for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that Cipriano was not an “interested person” in the estate given his earlier deed of assignment.
- She attached a copy of the deed and, in the alternative, prayed to be appointed administratrix.
- Cipriano responded on September 11, 1963, contending in his opposition that:
- Josefina Duran was not the decedent’s wife.
- The deed of assignment was procured through fraud, involved gross inadequacy of price, and was vitiated by lesion.
- On September 14, 1963, Miguel Duran, another brother of the decedent, filed a petition seeking to join Cipriano as co-petitioner.
- Josefina Duran moved to strike out Miguel’s petition as an improper intervention.
- Miguel filed an opposition to Josefina’s motion to strike out.
- Court of First Instance Decision
- On June 5, 1964, the Court of First Instance issued an order:
- Dismissing Cipriano Duran’s petition for lack of interest based on the deed of assignment.
- Stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to examine the allegations of fraud, inadequacy of price, or lesion around the deed within the settlement proceedings.
- Consequently, Miguel’s petition to be joined as co-petitioner was also deemed without merit.
- Appeal Issues
- Both Cipriano and Miguel Duran appealed directly on questions of law arising from the dismissal.
- The central legal issue was the interpretation of “interested person” under the Rules of Court, particularly Section 2, Rule 79.
Issues:
- Whether the deed of assignment executed by Cipriano Duran outside of any pending settlement proceedings effectively rendered him without the “interest” required to file a petition for intestate estate settlement.
- The appellants argued that an assignment between co-heirs amounts to a partition needing court approval, as seen in In Re Irene Santos.
- They maintained that even after an extrajudicial assignment is approved, the assigning heir remains an interested person in the estate.
- Whether the extrajudicial partition (or assignment) executed before the commencement of settlement proceedings operates effectively between the parties without the need for court approval.
- This included a discussion on the legal effect of an extrajudicial partition when the recessing procedures of Section 1, Rule 74 are not followed.
- The contention was that the assignment should only be subject to review in a separate action for fraud, inadequacy of price, or lesion.
- Whether Miguel Duran’s petition to intervene as co-petitioner could be sustained under the circumstances of an already dismissed settlement proceeding.
- Whether Josefina Duran’s alternative prayer to be appointed administratrix constituted any ratification of Cipriano’s petition for settlement.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)