RULE 74

UTULO vs. GARCIA

GR 45904, September 30,1938
Facts:
1.
2.
3.

4.

Juan Garcia Sanchez died intestate leaving as heirs his widow,

Leona and 3 legitimate children (Juan, Patrocinio and Luz);
Luz died leaving her mother and husband, Pablo, as forced heirs;
Pablo then commenced an action for the judicial administration of
the property of Luz which was opposed by Leona on the grounds
that since Luz left no indebtedness, there was no occasion for the
said judicial administration;
TC ruled in favor of the applicant Pablo

Issue: A. WON, there is a need for an appointment administrator;

1.

WON, Leona has a better right to be an administrator as compared

to Pablo.

Held:
A.

1. No, Sec 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, if no

executor is named in the will, or if a person dies intestate,
administration shall be granted, etc. However, this is subject to
exception under Sec. 596-597.
Sec.596, when all heirs are all of legal age and there are no debts
due from the estate, they may agree in writing in to partition the
property without instituting the judicial administration or applying
for the appointment of an administrator
Sec 597. if the property left does not exceed 6,000, the heirs may
apply to the competent court, after the required publications, to
proceed with the summary partition and, after paying all the known
obligations, to partition all the property constituting the inheritance
among themselves pursuant to law, without instituting the judicial
administration and the appointment of an administrator
2. When a person dies without leaving pending obligations to be
paid, his heirs, whereafter, of age or not, are not bound to submit
the property to a judicial administration, which is always long and
costly, or to apply for the appointment of an administrator by the
court. It has been uniformly held that in such case the judicial

administration and the appointment of an administrator are

superfluous and unnecessary proceedings.
B. No need to determine which of the parties has preferential right to
the office of administrator

RULE 74
FULE vs. FULE
G.R. No. 21859 September 30, 1924

FACTS:
1. On April 4, 1923, Saturnino Fule died intestate. On
July 2, one of his heirs, Ciriaco Fule, presented a
petition in the CFI of Laguna for the appointment of
Cornelio Alcantara as special administrator of
Saturninos estate.
2. Petitioner Ciriaco alleged that at the time of death,
the deceased was the owner of real and personal
property in San Pablo, Laguna amounting to P50,000
with a rental value of about P8,000. In addition, he
also left P30,000 in cash.
3. The lower court then appointed Alcantara as special
administrator.
4. On July 31, the children of Saturnino opposed
through a motion alleging that: (a) they were all of
age and, (b) that they opposed the appointment of an
administrator on the ground that the deceased had
left no debts and that his property had already been
partitioned among his children during his lifetime in
conformity with article 1056 of the Civil Code, (c) that the
special administrator had taken possession of property of
large value belonging to them, and had thereby deprived
them of their means of livelihood, and prayed that the order
appointing a special administrator be denied.

5. Petitioner then prayed for the motion of the oppositors to be

denied alleging that the latter had been requested to make
a partition of the property of the deceased; there was no
partition of the property and that, the disputed property
described in Exhibit A was his exclusive and absolute
property in quiet, public and exclusive possession as owner
for more than 40 years.
6. On August 15 the lower court revoked the appointment of
special administrator and ordered him to render an account.
The appointment of an administrator was then denied and
the court recommended that petitioner amend his petition
within 30 days from this date and present an ordinary action
for partition.
7. On September 5 petitioner excepted to said order and
presented a motion for reconsideration or new trial and
prayed that the court declare without effect said August 15
order and proceed to the appointment of an ordinary
administrator who should present a project of partition for
approval.
8. On September 11, oppositors opposed upon the ground that
the judgment of August 15 had become final and nonappealable.
9. On September 17, the lower court annulled and set aside
the August 15 order, which granted to petitioner the right to
amend his petition and fixed October 4 as the day within
which the proof upon such questioned appointment of an
administrator should commence.
10. On October 26, the petition was denied by the lower court
on the principal ground that all of the deceaseds property
had been in the possession of his heirs for many years
before his death; and that at the time of his death there
were no debts and no property to be administered.
Petitioner appealed.

11. Meanwhile, oppositors moved for the dismissal of

such appeal on the ground that it had not been
perfected within the 20-day period under Sec.783 of
Act No.190.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the appeal from the decision of the lower court
was perfected within the required time.
2. Whether or not the court erred in refusing to appoint an
administrator for the estate of the deceased.

HELD:
1. YES. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of August 15,
1923, was not final; the final judgment rendered in the case
was on the October 26, 1923 and that, the appeal from the final
judgment was perfected within time.
2. NO. It may be said (a) that it is admitted by all of the parties to
the present action, that at the time of his death no debts
existed against his estate and (b) that all of the heirs of
Saturnino Fule were of age.
In the case of Bondad vs. Bondad (34 Phil., 232), Chief Justice
Cayetano Arellano said: " 'Under the provisions of the Civil Code

(articles 657 to 661), the rights to the succession of a person are

transmitted from the moment of his death; in other words, the
heirs succeed immediately to all of the property of the deceased
ancestor. The property belongs to the heirs at the moment of the
death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had
executed and delivered to them a deed for the same before his
death. In the absence of debts existing against the estate,
the heirs may enter upon the administration of the said
property immediately. If they desire to administer it jointly,
they may do so. If they desire to partition it among
themselves and can do this by mutual agreement, they also
have that privilege " (Sections 182-184, 196, and 596 of Act
No. 190.)
When the heirs are all of lawful age and there are no debts there is
no reason why the estate should be burdened with the cost and
expenses of an administrator. The administrator has no right to
intervene in any way whatsoever in the division of the estate
among the heirs when they are adults and when there are no debts
against
the
estate.
(Ilustre vs. Alaras
Frondosa, supra;Bondad vs. Bondad, supra;
Baldemor vs. Malangyaon, supra.)
3. Judgment appealed from is affirmed.