Title
Testate Estate of Cruz vs. Cruz
Case
G.R. No. L-21027
Decision Date
Jul 20, 1968
Heirs contested summary settlement of Teodoro Cruz's estate, claiming omitted properties and challenging partition under final probate decision. SC ruled settlement final, inheritance irrevocable, and required separate proof for omitted properties.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21027)

Findings of the Court of First Instance

The Court of First Instance determined that Teodoro T. Cruz had no outstanding debts, and the estate's gross value was approximately P4,970. This court permitted the summary settlement of the estate and acknowledged the will's validity, identifying thirteen parcels of land located in Bugallon and Aguilar, Pangasinan, as the primary assets to be divided among the heirs according to the will's stipulations.

Grounds for Motion for Reconsideration

Subsequent to the court's decision, some heirs filed a motion to reconsider the summary settlement portion, asserting two main arguments: first, that the parcels identified in the will were part of the conjugal partnership with Teodoro's deceased wife, Honorata Aquino, thus questioning his authority to dispose of them entirely; second, that since the testator died after the New Civil Code took effect, the deed must comply with its provisions, as the will was executed under the prior law.

Court's Rationale on Reconsideration

The court denied the motion, clarifying that probate proceedings do not assign property not belonging to the testator and that the will's provisions conformed to the law. It reiterated that there was no indication of an excessive grant beyond what Teodoro could legally bequeath or of impairment to the legitime of the heirs.

Appointment of Estate Administrator

The heirs continued to contest the handling of the estate, later petitioning for the appointment of Narciso Abalos as administrator, citing the need for formal proceedings to address all property, including parcels not mentioned in the will and for tax liabilities. The court granted this petition, asserting that an administrator was necessary to oversee the liquidation of the estate appropriately.

Court of Appeals Decision

Opponents of the administrator's appointment contended that the issues were previously settled, with the court of appeals eventually dismissing their argument, ruling that the probate court has a statutory obligation to administer the estate comprehensively, thereby justifying the appointment of an administrator to include all relevant properties in the estate.

Project of Partition and Subsequent Court Approval

Following the administrator's inventory of properties, a project of partition was submitted and subsequently approved by the court. The oppositors claimed this partition disregarded the probate decision from November 5, 1958; however, the court found the project equitable and in alignment with both the will and legal standards, allowing the distribution to proceed.

Legal Contentions and Final Ruling

The key contention raised by the oppositors at the appellate level was that the estate had been settled and partitioned summarily, thereby precluding any additional partitioning. The appellate court acknowledged the finality of the previous decision while emphasizing the legal acceptance of inheritance, which underscores that past agreements about estate division could not be contested unless substantial grounds were presented.

Conclusion and Legal Implications

The appellate court conclude

...continue reading

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