Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34224)
Facts:
Inestate Estate of the Deceased Eduviges Banaga, G.R. No. L-34224, October 15, 1974, the Supreme Court Second Division, Aquino, J., writing for the Court.Librada Lucero (appellant/administratrix) administered the estate of her grandmother Eduviges Banaga, who died intestate on September 24, 1921 in San Antonio, Zambales. Eduviges was survived by legitimate children Rufina Pascasio (d. 1943) and Anselmo Pascasio, and by acknowledged natural children Felix (Pascasio) Banaga (died, heir: Maria Banaga) and Leonora Banaga. Rufina’s estate was later administered by her daughter Librada Lucero, who succeeded as administratrix in the intestate proceedings (Special Proceedings No. 346) in the Court of First Instance of Zambales.
On February 10, 1959 the administratrix submitted a project of partition dated July 19, 1957 (conformed to by most interested parties, including oppositors’ counsel and Leonora Banaga); four heirs resident in the United States did not expressly give conformity and were given constructive notice by publication. The partition allocated two-thirds of the estate (fourteen lots and parts of two lots) to Anselmo and Rufina’s heirs and one-third (fourteen lots and parts of two lots) to Leonora and Maria Banaga. The project stated debts and taxes had been paid and listed all heirs and residences.
The probate court ordered publication of the project on February 20, 1959; no oppositions were filed within the prescribed period. On December 23, 1966 the probate court approved the project, noting a final accounting dated December 7, 1965 had been submitted, and directed the administratrix to deliver the heirs’ shares. After the approval became final, on May 15, 1967 the administratrix moved to set aside the approved partition and exclude sixteen registered lots from the estate on the ground that their Torrens titles were registered not in the name of Eduviges but in the names of her children (Anselmo, Rufina and Felix), citing a Register of Deeds certification.
Oppositors Leonora Banaga and Maria Banaga opposed the motion. The probate court denied the administratrix’s motion on September 7, 1967 and denied reconsideration on December 21, 1967. The administratrix appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court because the assignment of errors presented pure questions of law and revealed no factual problem; the briefs lacked a narrative statement of uncontested facts.
The record showed that the administratrix and her predecessor had treated the sixteen registered lots as part of the estate for decades—these were included in the inventory and had been in the administratrix’s possession for over twenty-five years; estate and inheritance taxes had been paid on the assumption they belonged to the estate. A related matter: Lot 2090 (registered in Anselmo’s and Rufina’s names) had been sold by ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the probate court err in denying the administratrix’s motion to exclude the sixteen registered lots and in approving the project of partition?
- If the partition stands, how may the administratrix effect delivery of registered lots adjudicated to distributees where Torrens titles are in the names of other persons?
- Should this Court approve the petition-manifestation of Felix Arcala to validate the sale of Lot 2090 e...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)