IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF PAZ E. SIGUION TORRES, DECEASED, ALBERTO S. TORRES, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT VS. CONCHITA TORRES AND ANGEL S. TORRES, OPPOSITORS AND APP…

In a petition filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay
branch) on January 4, 1961, Alberto S. Torres, claiming to be one of
the four legitimate children of Paz E. Siguion Torres who died
intestate on December 18, 1959, prayed for the issuance in his favor of
letters of administration in connection with the properties left by the
decedent, with an aggregate value of about P300,000.00. It was also
alleged therein that petitioner was unaware of any existing debt or
obligation contracted by the deceased or by her estate, from any of the
heirs or from third persons.

This petition was opposed by Conchita Torres, one of the heirs, on
the ground that the appointment of an administrator is unnecessary in
view of the fact that on January 27, 1960, the heirs of the deceased
(including petitioner) had already entered into an extrajudicial
partition and settlement of the estate, pursuant to Section 1 of Rule
74 of the Rules of Court. This was answered by petitioner who, while
admitting that such extrajudicial partition was signed by the heirs,
contended that attempts at the actual designation of their respective
shares had failed thus needing the court’s intervention. It was also
claimed that some properties of considerable value were not included in
said extrajudicial partition. In a supplemental answer to the
opposition, subsequently filed, petitioner likewise alleged that the
estate has an existing debt of P50.000.00 from third persons, a fact
which he claimed was not incorporated in the petition, through
oversight. Petitioner, however, offered to amend the petition before
presentation of evidence, with leave of court. On July 21, 1961, the
court, finding that an extrajudicial settlement had already been
entered into by the heirs, dismissed the petition. Hence, the
institution of the present appeal.

Petitioner-appellant does not controvert the execution of an
extrajudicial deed of partition of the estate, which, according to
appellee, contains the following provisions:

“1. That they (Alberto, Angel, Eduardo and
Conchita, all surnamed Torres) are the only legitimate children who
survive the deceased Paz Siguion Vda. de Torres;

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

“3.
That the said decedent died without leaving any will and her only
surviving heirs are the aforementioned parties who are her legitimate
children;

“4. That the deceased left no debts;

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

“6.
That pursuant to Section 1, Rule 74 of tve Rules of Court and in view
of the difficulty of making a physical division of the above
‘properties, the parties have agreed to settle the aformentioned estate
by continuing the co-ownership on all the above properties in the
following proportion:

Alberto Torres— ¼ undivided interest
Ansel Torres— ¼ undivided interest
Eduardo Torres— ¼ undivided interest
Conchita Torres— ¼ undivided interest” (Italic supplied.)

It appears from the pleadings filed herein that the petition to
place the estate under administration was predicated mainly on the
alleged inability of the heirs to agree on a physical division of the
properties. The alleged existence of an indebtedness and non-inclusion
in the list incorporated in the deed of extrajudicial partition, of
certain properties that form part of the estate, seemed to be merely an
afterthought as the reference to them was made only in the answer to
the opposition and motion for dismissal of the petition, and is not
made under oath. There is also no allegation as to the particulars of
the debt and the omitted properties sufficient to identify them. In the
circumstances, we agree with the lower court that a special proceeding
for the settlement of the estate of the deceased is not here necessary.

Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, provides:

“SECTION 1. Extra-judicial settlement by agreement between heirs.—If
the decedent left no debts and the heirs and legatees are all of age,
or the minors arc represented by their judicial guardians, the parties
may without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among
themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the
office of the Register of Deeds, and should they disagree, they may do
so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir or one
legatee, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by/ means of an
affidavit filed in the office of the Register of Heeds. It shall be
presumed that the decedent left no debt if no creditor files a petition
for letters of administration within two years after the death of the
decedent.”

Thus, where the decedent left no debts and heirs or legatees are all
of age, as in this case, there is no necessity for the institution of
special proceedings and the appointment of an administrator for the
settlement of the estate, because the same can be effected either
extrajudicially or through an ordinary action for partition. (Guico, et
al. vs. Bautista, et al., (110 Phil., 584). If there is an
actual necessity for court intervention, as contended by appellant, in
view of the heirs’ failure to reach an agreement as to how the estate
would be divided physically, the latter, under the aforequoted Rule,
have still the remedy of an ordinary action for partitions

This is not to overlook the allegation that the estate has an
outstanding obligation of P50,000.00. It is to be noted, however, that
appellant, as heretofore observed, did not specify from whom and in
what manner the said debt was contracted. Indeed, the bare allegation
that, “the estate has an existing debt of P50,000.00 from third
persons” cannot be considered a concise statement to constitute a cause
of action. It must be for this reason that the lower court,
notwithstanding the existence of such averment in appellant’s
supplemental answer to the opposition, dismissed the petition filed by
said appellant.

Nor does the unverified statement that there are other properties,
not included in the deed of extrajudicial partition in the possession
of one of the heirs, justify the institution of an administration
proceeding because the same questions that may arise as to them, viz.
the title thereto, and their partition, if proven to belong to the
intestate, can be properly and expeditiously litigated in an ordinary
action of partition.

Wherefore, finding no error in the order appealed from, the same is
hereby affirmed, with cost against the appellant. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.