Title
IN RE: Torres vs. Torres
Case
G.R. No. L-19064
Decision Date
Jan 31, 1964
Heirs executed extrajudicial settlement; petitioner sought administration citing unresolved division, debt, and omitted properties. Court dismissed, ruling settlement valid; disputes resolvable via partition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19064)

Petition for Letters of Administration

On January 4, 1961, Alberto S. Torres filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay branch) for the issuance of letters of administration concerning the estate of the deceased. In his petition, he claimed he was one of the legitimate children of Paz E. Siguion Torres and asserted there were no existing debts owed by the decedent or her estate.

Opposing Claims and Extrajudicial Partition

Conchita Torres opposed the petition, stating that the heirs had already executed an extrajudicial partition and settlement of the estate on January 27, 1960, which made the appointment of an administrator unnecessary. Although Alberto acknowledged the signing of the extrajudicial partition, he contended that the actual division of the properties had failed and that certain valuable properties were not included in the partition.

Supplemental Claims by Petitioner

In a supplemental answer, Alberto alleged that the estate had an outstanding debt of P50,000.00 from third parties, which he claimed was an oversight in his initial petition. He expressed willingness to amend the petition before evidence presentation, requesting leave from the court.

Dismissal of the Petition

On July 21, 1961, the trial court dismissed the petition, citing the prior extrajudicial settlement entered into by the heirs. Consequently, Alberto appealed the decision. The lower court found that the extrajudicial deed of partition, to which all heirs were parties, provided significant details confirming the heirs and indicating a lack of debts as claimed by Alberto.

Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court analyzed the basis of Alberto's petition for administration, finding it centered on the inability of the heirs to agree on a physical division of the estate. The court determined that the alleged debts and undistributed properties mentioned by Alberto appeared to be afterthoughts lacking sufficient supporting details, such as specifics about the claims of indebtedness and omitted properties.

Legal Standards from Rule 74

The court referenced Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, which allows heirs to divide an estate without securing letters of administration if there are no debts and all heirs are of legal age. It emphasized that court intervention was unnecessary in this instance since the heirs could resolve disagreements through an ordinary action for partition.

Conclusion on Claims of Indebtedness

The court additionally noted that Alberto's claim of an outstanding debt lacked the specificity required to establish a cause of action

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.