G.R. No. L-15746. February 29, 1964
TESTATE ESTATE OF ZABALA, SALVADOR A. CABALUNA, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. HEIRS OF ALEJANDRA CORDOVA, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EULOGIA DE LEON, OPPOSITORS AND…
PAREDES, J.:
ascendant or descendant. Before his death, he executed a will and
testament which was duly probated before the war, wherein he designated
as his universal heir, Alejandra Cordova, a widow, who died on
September 8, 1942, leaving the following legitimate children, all of
age, to wit: Emilia Meliton, Jose, Guilliermo, Eulogia and Juan, all
surnamed De Leon. Atty. Venancio C, Bañares, who was employed by the
said Alejandra Cordova as her counsel, in the early stages of the
probate of the will, is entitled to one-fifth (1/5) of the properties
left by the deceased Fr. Zabala, after all the obligations of the
estate, are paid, by virtue of a contract dated May 26, 1934, approved
by the Court in Civil Case No. 11266. Salvador A. Cabaluna, Jr. was
appointed administrator of the testate estate of Fr. Zabala, to succeed
former administrator- Atty. Canuto Damaso. Atty. Fulgencio Vega is the
lawyer of the heirs of Alejandra Cordova (oppositors), except Eulogia
de Leon, who was represented by Atty. Claro Gasendo. The deceased left
thirty-one (31) parcels of land and one motor and rice mill without
spare parts.
On August 25, 1956, the herein heirs filed a project of partition, dated August 20, 1956,
bearing the conformity of all the heirs, including Eulogia de Leon,
which was opposed by Atty. Bañares. On October 5, 1956, Atty. Bañares
presented a counter-project of partition which was in turn opposed by
the heirs.
No evidence had been presented in support of the two projects of
partition; instead the lower court, in an order of December 22, 1956,
commissioned Atty. Julio Albis, one of the employees of the court, to go over all the projects of partition and prepare a, tentative
project of partition “which should contain items where the parties are
agreed or have a common ground and a separate report on the projects of
partition where the parties disagree, and submit his recommendations
thereon.”
The lower court on January 8, 1957, issued the following order:
“The Commissioner, Atty. Julio V. Albis having submitted his report dated January 5, 1957, is hereby ordered to prepare a partial project of partition involving all the lots not litigated or encumbered. The properties should be divided into five parts in similar pattern
as that submitted by Atty. Yenancio C, Banaros. The share of each heir
including Atty, Bañares, will be drawn by lots in the office of the
Commissioner Atty. Albis, five (5) days after the approval of the
partial project of partition. The Commissioner should sum up all the palay taken by all the parties who are entitled to the inheritance and divide the total of said palay into six parts. Atty. Bañares, who is only entitled to his share in the estate will not participate in the produce of the lands.
After having divided the total of the palay drawn by the parties into
six equal parts, any heir who has overdrawn his or her aliquot share
should deliver the excess to the heirs who had underdrawn his or her
aliquot share in order that each of the heirs should receive equal
share. The Commissioner should submit his partial project of partition
within ten (10) days from, the receipt of copy of this order. The
administrator is hereby ordered to pay the inheritance and estate tax
within one (1) month from the receipt of copy of this order.”
On January 18, 1957, Commissioner Albis filed his partial
project of partition. And on January 24, 1957, the lower court ordered
“that the raffling or sharing of lots take place on February 4, 1957 at
nine a.m. in the office of the said Commissioner, and that if the
parties had any objection or comment in the grouping of the properties
for the purpose of drawing lots, they might file their opposition or
comment, not later than January 31, 1957.”
On January 30, 1957, the heirs filed their opposition to the partial
project of partition, asking its disapproval and praying that a date be set aside for the reception of evidence
for the approval or non-approval of the project of partition presented
by the heirs and the Judicial Administrator, so that the proceedings
could be terminated soon. On her part, the heir Eulogia de Leon, on
January 12, 1957, filed a motion praying that Commissioner Albis be
ordered to divide the properties not drawn in the lot on February 4,
1957, into six equal parts and a date be set for the drawing of the lot
by the six heirs, which was opposed on February 14, 1957 by the
heirs herein, on the ground that ” the drawing of the lots scheduled on
Feb. 4, 1957, is embodied as one of the recommendations in said project
of partition which the Court did not adopt and of which the parties were not duly notified”.
In an order dated February 16, 1957, the trial court instructed Commissioner Albis to “prepare a tentative project of partition by dividing the remaining 4/5 of the estate into six parts pertaining
to the heirs of Alejandra Cordova”, taking into account the opposition
of the other heirs represented by Atty, Vega. The Commissioner, as
instructed, submitted a partial project of partition of the properties
of the estate, to be drawn by lots by the six heirs or for direct
distribution to each of them, for which the trial court on April 22,
1957 issued an Order, setting the drawing of lots on April 27,
1957. The heirs, thru Atty. Vega, however, notified the Commissioner
that they did not like to take part in the drawing of lots, for the
reasons stated in their opposition dated February 14, 1957. The date
for the drawing was moved to May 11, 1957, of which the heirs were
notified, but again the heirs manifested that they would not take part
in the drawing for the reasons stated in. their opposition dated February 14, 1957,
and “that it was their intention to have the counter project of
partition submitted by the present Judicial Administrator approved, by
allowing and permitting thorn to present their evidence in support thereof, and in case of disapproval, they would appeal therefrom to a superior court.”
On May 15, 1957, the trial court ordered the distribution of the
properties to the heirs, in accordance with the result of the drawing
of lots and further ordered the Administrator to deliver the possession
of the properties to the heirs, and that the inheritance and estate
taxes be paid by the administrator within one week from receipt of the
copy of said Order.
Dated May 22, 1957, Atty. Vega, filed a motion reciting in their
chronological order, the various steps taken by the parties, and ending
with the statement that the heirs he represented “are not agreeable to
the partial project of partition submitted by the Commissioner
and approved by the Honorable Court, and therefore, it is reiterated
that the counter-project of partition filed by the Judicial
Administrator dated August 20, 1956, with the conformity of all the
heirs, be approved after the reception of evidence presented by the heirs in support of its legality,” and praying that “date be set for the reception of evidence
in support of the counter-project of partition dated August 20, 1956,
with the conformity of all the heirs.” On June 8, 1957, Atty. Bahares
filed his opposition to the last motion which was denied by the trial
court on the same date.
The case is now before us for a review of the orders heretofore
mentioned. The oppositor-appellants, heirs of Alejandra Cordova, with
the exception of Eulogia de Leon, allege that the trial court erred:
(1) In not setting a date for the reception of
evidence in support of the project of partition submitted by the
Judicial Administrator dated August 20, 1956, with the conformity of
the heirs.(2) In ordering the drawing by lots of the
shares that should correspond to each of the heirs as recommended by
the Commissioner over the objection of the heirs.(3) In
approving the project of partition submitted by the Commissioner in
accordance with the lots drawn, “without the assistance arid
concurrence of the heirs, herein appellants; and(4) In not
requiring the heirs to submit evidence to show the legality and
sufficiency of the project of partition submitted by the Commissioner.
It thus appears that the project of partition submitted by the
Judicial Administrator Atty. Gabaluna, Jr. bore the conformity of the
heirs, with the exception of Atty. Bañares. The said heirs, with the
exception of Eulogia de Leon filed a motion dated May 22, 1957,
requesting, among others, that a date be set for the reception of
evidence in support of the said project of partition of August 20, 1956,
but the trial court denied the same on June 8, 1957. Neither has the
trial court set for hearing the project of partition submitted by
Commissioner Albis, in which the appellants did not take part, because
they did not like to enter into a raffle or in the drawing of dots. In
their pleading of January 30, 1957, the said heirs, with the exception
of Eulogia de Leon, opposed the partial project of partition filed by
Commissioner Albis, dated January 18, 1957, on the following grounds:
that several lots which have been sold or mortgaged by the individual
heirs or lots on which considerable improvements were already made and
occupied by the heirs, which the corresponding heirs expected to
receive as their shares, were not adjudicated or assigned to them, in
the grouping; that while in the grouping, each of the four groups had
practically the same area or the same number of square meters, and the
same assessed value, the “inherent” value (quality) of the properties
were not taken into account; that Atty. Bañares not having rendered
full service, his share should be reduced or diminished; and that Atty.
Bañares should not be given the first chance to draw, as recommended by
the Commissioner. In said opposition, the said heirs prayed that the
partial project of partition, dated January 18,1957, be disapproved and that a date be set for the reception of evidence
for the approval or disapproval of the two counter- projects of
partition, presented by the heirs and the judicial administrator.
With the facts gathered from the pleadings, manifestations and
counter-manifestations of the parties, it would not seem fair and just,
to compel the herein oppositors-appellants to participate in the
drawing by lots of the properties, grouped in accordance with the value
of the lands, arbitrarily and unilaterally, fixed by the Commissioner,
including properties already disposed and/or sold, and make them accept
as final, the grouping of said lots effected by the said Commissioner,
without giving them the opportunity to show with competent proofs,
their fair market value, (not merely the assessed value) location,
productivity, the class (rice or corn land, irrigated or unirrigated,
good or poor lands), the area of the lots, the correct amounts or value
of the allowances and advances each heir had received and to determine
whether Atty. Bañares is entitled to the products of the estate, the
indebtedness of the estate, such as taxes and mortgages; the number of
lots which the heirs wanted to be divided pro-indiviso; those
to be sold and the purchase price to be divided; the number of lots
which each heir desired to be alloted or assigned to himself or
herself, etc. It is also contended by appellants that, as per
agreement, one-fifth (1/5) of the estate, should be given to Atty.
Bañares, only after he shall have rendered full service to the heirs,
up to and including the preparation and approval of a project of
partition, and that not having done so, he is entitled to less than
1/5. As things stand now, except the pleadings and manifestations and
counter-manifestations of the parties, there are no concrete facts
proven, for none had been permitted to be adduced, by which the trial
court, much less an appellate Court, could base a conclusion as to
which project of partition is the most just, equitable and fair for all
the parties concerned. Herein oppositor-appellants should not be
deprived of their legitimate shares, in the properties of the decedent,
without due process of law.
WHEREFORE, the several Orders issued by the trial Court, approving
the partial project of partition and distributing the properties in
question by lot, submitted by Commissioner Julio Albis, are hereby set
aside, and the case is remanded to the lower court for reception of
evidence, with a view of determining the legality and sufficiency of
any project of partition, duly submitted or to be submitted to said
Court, and to render judgment accordingly. Without costs.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.