01 Gatmaitan vs.

Medina
No. L-14400. (August 5, 1960)
Reyes, JBL., J. / kam

Subject Matter: Rule 90 Sec. 1 – When order for distribution can be made
Summary: Appellant Felicismo Gatmaitan (Gatmaitan) was appointed as administrator of his wife’s intestate estate, along
with his co-administrator, appellee Gorgonio Medina (Medina). Medina and the other heirs (siblings of the deceased) filed a
Motion for Partial Partition and Distribution of the estate even though there is no final inventory yet that was approved by the
court. Such partial partition includes P1,000 cash each for Gorgonio & Dominica Medina (siblings of deceased), and 25 cavans
of palay each for the two and for three other heirs. The court approved the motion for partial partition and distribution.
Gatmaitan filed an MR but was denied by the court.
The issue herein is whether or not the court can order a partial distribution of the estate without requiring the
distributees to file the proper bonds pursuant to Rule 91 Sec. 1 (now Rule 90 Sec. 1). The SC held in the negative, as a partial
distribution of the estate should as much as possible be discouraged by the courts in order to ensure that the all the creditors
and the rightful heirs of the estate are protected. The appealed order is set aside by SC, without prejudice to the issue of
another order after strict compliance with the Rules of Court (i.e. proper filing of bond by the distributees).

Doctrines:
 No distribution shall be made until:
1. the payment of the obligations mentioned in Sec. 1 Rule 901 has been made or provided for; OR
2. the distributees or any of them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said
obligations within such time as the court directs.
 A partial distribution of the decedent's estate pending the final termination of the testate or intestate proceedings
should as much as possible be discouraged by the courts and, unless in extreme cases, such form of advances of
inheritance should not be countenanced. The reason for this strict rule is obvious—courts should guard with utmost
zeal and jealousy the estate of the decedent to the end that the creditors thereof be adequately protected and all the
rightful heirs assured of their shares in the inheritance.
 (CivPro) When the objection is founded on the ground that the order appealed from is interlocutory (e.g. order
granting motion for partial distribution), but the appellee, before making such objection, has allowed the record on
appeal to be approved and printed, and has allowed the appellant to print his brief, such objection is too late and is
deemed waived. (Salazar vs. Salazar)

Action before the SC: APPEAL from an order of CFI Nueva Ecija
Parties:
Administrator, Plaintiff and Appellant Felicisimo Gatmaitan
Co-administrator, Defendant, and Appellee Gorgonio D. Medina

Facts:
1. Veronica Medina, wife of Felicismo Gatmaitan (Gatmaitan), died intestate. Gatmaitan filed a petition seeking his
appointment as the administrator while Gorgonio Medina & Dominica Medina (full-blood siblings of deceased) filed
an opposition and prayed that Gorgonio, as neutral third party, or Gorgonio & Gatmaitan, jointly, be appointed as
administrator or administrators of the estate.
2. The court appointed Gatmaitan as administrator with a P2,000 bond and Gorgonio as co-administrator without
compensation and bond.
Inventory
3. Gatmaitan filed an amended inventory consisting of the undivided half of the conjugal partnership properties
amounting to P31,336.60. Oppositors filed an opposition alleging that a 22-hectare land was left out from the
inventory. The hearing and consideration of the amended inventory was thus postponed until further assignment.
Motion for Partial Partition and Distribution
4. The heirs of the deceased filed a Motion for Partial Partition and Distribution stating that the estate had no debts, that
some of them were in need of cash, and praying that the share of each heir in the palay produce for agricultural year
1956-57, as well as the cash deposit in the different banks, be ordered partially distributed among the heirs pending
the final distribution of the estate.
5. While the court heard the counsel of both Gatmaitan and of the heirs / oppositors, it ordered the partial distribution
without evidence:

1When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance
with law, have been paid, the court, on the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall
assign the residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and such persons may
demand and recover their respective shares from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his possession.
 a. Gorgonio & Dominica be given an advance payment of P1,000 each from the cash deposit
b. The two above and 3 other heirs be given 25 cavans of palay each for their subsistence
6. Gatmaitan filed an MR contending that he has not agreed to the partial distribution of the estate in the manner
contained in the order. MR denied for lack of merit.
Appeal by Gatmaitan
7. Gatmaitan filed this appeal and gave notice to counsel of the oppositors.
8. The order approving the record on appeal states that the counsel of the oppositors failed to file written opposition
thereto as required by the court
9. The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court (current case) as there is no serious issue of fact
involved.

Issue: WON the court can order a partial distribution of the intestate estate without requiring the distributees to file the
proper bonds pursuant to Rule 91 Sec. 1 (now Rule 90 Sec. 1)? (NO)

Ratio:
1. A partial distribution of the decedent's estate pending the final termination of the testate or intestate proceedings
should as much as possible be discouraged by the courts and, unless in extreme cases, such form of advances of
inheritance should not be countenanced. The reason for this strict rule is obvious—courts should guard with utmost
zeal and jealousy the estate of the decedent to the end that the creditors thereof be adequately protected and all the
rightful heirs assured of their shares in the inheritance.
2. Application to this case: The appealed order is unwarranted for the following reasons –
(a) The partial distribution was prematurely ordered because when it was rendered by the court, the amended
inventory filed by Administrator Gatmaitan was not yet even accepted and was still under consideration by the
court. Further, notices for the presentation of claims by possible creditors of the estate had not yet been published
so such period of presentation of claims has not yet elapsed.
As there is no final inventory yet, it cannot be safely said that the amounts ordered to be partially distributed
would not be in excess of the distributees’ full inheritance. Said inventory (31k above) does not yet embody
deductions for expenses such as funeral charges, inheritance taxes, expenses for administration, or an estimate of
the probable debts of the estate. Aside from the surviving spouse, there are 8 others claiming to be lawful heirs of
the deceased, five of whom are full-blooded brothers and sisters and three are half-blood brothers. It should be
noted that appellees, being merely brothers and sisters of the deceased, are not entitled to allowances for support
as provided in Sec. 3 Rule 84 (now Sec. 3 Rule 83).
(b) No bond was fixed by the court as a condition precedent to the partial distribution ordered by it, a bond which,
because of the reasons already adduced, becomes all the more imperative. Rule 91 Sec. 1 par. 2 (now Rule 90 Sec.
1) specifically provides:
“No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above mentioned has been made or
provided for, unless the distributees or any of them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court,
conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs.”
Appellees contended that since the partial distribution was made in agreement of the parties, it now cannot
be assailed by appellant. However, there is reason to believe that appellant did not agree to it as he filed an MR
right after the order was rendered and appellees did not controvert appellant’s allegation that he did not agree to
such partial distribution.
As to the argument that the order in question is merely interlocutory and therefore not appealable, it was
previously held by this Court in Salazar vs. Salazar that if not timely objection is made to such appeal [to an
interlocutory order], then such objection is deemed waived. Appellees failed to file a written opposition to the
appeal of appellant.
(c) Appellees urge that this appeal was prematurely taken because appellant has not yet formally objected to their
proferred bond of P2,000 and the value of 25 cavanes of palay. Such belated offer to file a bond amounted to no
more than an attempt of appellees to settle the particular issue between the parties that was rejected by the
appellant.
Since the purpose of the bond required by Section 1, paragraph 2, of Rule 91 [as quoted here in 2(b)] is to
protect not only the appellant but also the creditors and subsequent claimants to the estate, in order that they
may not be prejudiced by the partial distribution, the amount of the bond could not be fixed without hearing such
interested parties, and there is no showing that they were consulted.

Dispositive: ORDER appealed from is SET ASIDE, without prejudice to the issue of another order after strict compliance with
the Rules of Court.