Você está na página 1de 1

Monserrat vs Ibanez Vicenta Salamanca died intestate leaving as heirs 1 son and 4 daughters.

Ramon (son) filed in CFI Laguna a petition for his appointment as administrator of the properties of his deceased mother. His sisters (respondents) opposed saying that they are all of age; the debts and obligations of the estate has already been paid; that they did not want to be burdened with admin proceedings; and that Ramons remedy was to sue for partition under Rule 74 of ROC. Judge Ibanez issued an order stating that in accordance with Fule v Fule the proper remedy should be an action for partition because all the heirs were of age and there were no debts of the estate. He required the sisters to institute partition proceedings and that the litigation begun by Ramon will be held in abeyance. The sisters filed an action for partition. Ramon filed this special civil action alleging that the respondent judge had committed grave abuse of discretion. He prayed for the court to proceed with the hearing of his petition for administration. Petitioner asserts that it is not known whether there are any debts because these may be shown only in the administration proceedings but he did not assert otherwise when respondents affidavit says that there was no debt. He argues that only when the heirs do not have any dispute as to the bulk of hereditary estate but only in the manner of partition does Section 1 Rule 74 of ROC apply, and that in this case the parties are at loggerheads as to the corpus of the hereditary estate because respondents succeeded in sequestering some assets of the intestate. Issue: WON the administration proceedings should be held in abeyance. HELD: Yes. Fule v Fule applies: where there are no debts, the heirs are not bound to submit the property to a judicial administration which is always long and costly or to apply for an appointment of an admin by the court. These proceedings are superfluous and unnecessary. The creditors are protected even if, without benefit of the administration, the estate is distributed in an action for partition. Questions as to what property belonged to the deceased (and to the heirs) may properly be ventilated in the partition proceedings, especially where such property is in the hands of one heir. The questions he seeks to raise in the admin proceedings may equally de decided in the partition suit. Besides, since the sisters constitute 4/5 of the heirs. The majority interest usually gets to select the administrator. SC also said that the admin proceedings will be dismissed soon, inasmuch as the partition suit has already been instituted, because the court has already intimated that the proceedings will be suspended pending the presentation of the other suit.