MARIA SOCORRO AVELINO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ANGELINA AVELINO, SHARON AVELINO, ANTONIO AVELINO, JR., TRACY AVELINO, PATRICK MICHAEL AVELINO AND MARK ANTHONY AVELINO,…

Avelino versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Maria Socorro Avelino against the Court of Appeals and her co-heirs, Angelina Avelino, Sharon Avelino, Antonio Avelino Junior, Tracy Avelino, Patrick Michael Avelino, and Mark Anthony Avelino. Socorro is a daughter and compulsory heir of the late Antonio Avelino Senior, who died intestate. She had asked the trial court to issue letters of administration over his estate and to appoint her as administrator. Her co-heirs opposed this and moved instead for a judicial partition. The case matters because it draws the line between two modes of settling an estate: administration, where a court-appointed administrator manages the property, and partition, where the heirs simply divide it among themselves. The Supreme Court uses the case to affirm that where partition is the more expeditious remedy, the heirs cannot be forced into administration proceedings.

Procedural History

Socorro filed her petition for the issuance of letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 78. Her co-heirs responded not with a formal opposition but with a motion to convert the proceedings into an action for judicial partition, which Socorro opposed. The trial court granted the motion, converting the petition into a judicial partition of the estate and directing the parties to submit a complete inventory of all the real and personal properties left by the deceased. Socorro moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied it.

Socorro then went up to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. The Court of Appeals denied the petition due course and dismissed it. Socorro moved for reconsideration, which was likewise denied. Hence, she came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Antonio Avelino Senior died intestate on the tenth of April, 1989. He left behind compulsory heirs: his daughter Socorro by his first wife Angelina, and his other children Sharon, Antonio Junior, Tracy, Patrick Michael, and Mark Anthony. Sharon, an American, is his second wife.

On the twenty-fourth of October, 1991, Socorro filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the issuance of letters of administration of the estate, asking that she be appointed administrator.

On the third of December, 1992, Angelina and the siblings filed a motion to convert the judicial proceedings into an action for judicial partition, which Socorro opposed. The trial court granted the conversion, noting that Socorro was the only heir not amenable to a simple partition while all the other compulsory heirs desired an expeditious settlement of the estate. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error of law and gravely abused its discretion in upholding the trial court's finding that a partition is proper.
• Whether or not a partition of the estate is possible before the character and extent of the decedent's estate has been determined.
• Whether or not the conversion of a petition for letters of administration into an action for judicial partition has a basis in the Rules of Court.

Applicable Provisions

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

SECTION 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. - If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, 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.

This is the provision the Court identifies as the very basis for the trial court's order converting the proceedings, since it allows an ordinary action for partition when the heirs disagree.

Section 2 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 2. Summary settlement of estates of small value.- Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased person, whether he died testate or intestate, does not exceed ten thousand pesos, and that fact if made to appear to the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction of the estate by the petition of an interested person and upon hearing, which shall be held not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months from the date of the last publication of a notice which shall be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, and after such other notice to interested persons as the court may direct, the court may proceed summarily, without the appointment of an executor or administrator, and without delay, to grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any there be, to determine who are the persons legally entitled to participate in the estate and to apportion and divide it among them after the payment of such debts of the estate as the court shall then find to be due; and such persons, in their own right, if they are lawful age and legal capacity, or by their guardians or trustees legally appointed and qualified, if otherwise, shall thereupon be entitled to receive and enter into the possession of the portions of the estate so awarded to them respectively. The court shall make such order as may be just respecting the costs of the proceedings, and all orders and judgments made or rendered in the course thereof shall be recorded in the office of the clerk, and the order of partition or award, if it involves real estate, shall be recorded in the proper register's office.

The Court cites this together with Section 1 as the exceptions to the general rule that the estate of a decedent shall be judicially administered.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error. The heirs succeed immediately to all the rights and properties of the deceased at the moment of the latter's death. Section 1 of Rule 74 allows heirs to divide the estate among themselves without the delay and the risk of dissipation. When a person dies without leaving pending obligations, his heirs are not required to submit the property for judicial administration, nor to apply for the appointment of an administrator. The Court of Appeals had found that the decedent left no debts and that the heirs and legatees are all of age, and on that finding Section 1 of Rule 74 applies.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that there is nothing yet to partition because the nature and character of the estate have yet to be determined. A complete inventory of the estate may be done during the partition proceedings, especially since the estate has no debts.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court's order does have a basis in the Rules. That basis is Section 1 of Rule 74, which provides that where the heirs disagree as to the partition and no extrajudicial settlement is possible, an ordinary action for partition may be resorted to. The Court ruled that where the more expeditious remedy of partition is available to the heirs, the heirs or the majority of them may not be compelled to submit to administration proceedings. The trial court therefore acted properly in converting the petition for letters of administration into a suit for judicial partition upon the motion of the private respondents.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the heirs succeed immediately to all the rights and properties of the deceased at the moment of death. Second, under Section 1 of Rule 74, when the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, they may divide the estate among themselves without securing letters of administration, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. Third, where the more expeditious remedy of partition is available, the heirs or the majority of them may not be compelled to submit to administration proceedings. Fourth, the absence of a prior determination of the character and extent of the estate is no obstacle, because a complete inventory may be taken during the partition proceedings.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, and the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the line that where the more expeditious remedy of partition is available to the heirs, the heirs or the majority of them may not be compelled to submit to administration proceedings. Examiners use this case to test the exceptions to judicial administration under Rule 74 and the propriety of converting a petition for letters of administration into an action for judicial partition.