Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19064)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Paz E. Siguion Torres, Deceased, G.R. No. L-19064, January 31, 1964, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Alberto S. Torres filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay Branch) on January 4, 1961, seeking letters of administration for the estate of his mother, Paz E. Siguion Torres, who died intestate on December 18, 1959. The petition alleged four legitimate children as heirs, placed the estate’s aggregate value at about P300,000.00, and initially averred that the decedent left no debts. Alberto prayed for appointment of an administrator to settle and distribute the estate.
The petition was opposed by Conchita Torres (one of the heirs), who argued that the heirs had already entered into an extrajudicial settlement and partition on January 27, 1960, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, rendering appointment of an administrator unnecessary. The opposition asserted the parties (named in the instrument as Alberto, Angel, Eduardo and Conchita) had agreed to continue co-ownership in equal undivided interests.
Petitioner admitted signing the extrajudicial instrument but contended that the heirs had failed to accomplish an actual designation of their respective shares and that certain properties of considerable value had been omitted from the extrajudicial partition. In a later supplemental answer he also alleged—without particulars and not under oath—that the estate had an outstanding obligation of P50,000.00 owed to third persons, and offered to amend his petition before presentation of evidence.
On July 21, 1961, the Court of First Instance dismissed the petition for letters of administration, finding that an extrajudicial settlement had been executed by the heirs and that petitioner’s s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the trial court correct in dismissing the petition for letters of administration because the heirs had executed an extrajudicial settlement under Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court?
- Did petitioner’s unverified allegation of a P50,000 debt and his claim of omitted properties suffice to show a need for admi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)