FORTUNATO LAYAGUE AND SANTIAGO ROMBO, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE INTESTATE OF ALIPIA PEREZ, DEFENDANT AN…

On July 29, 1949, Fortunato Layague and Santiago Rombo filed with the Court
of First Instance of Negros Occidental an action for declaratory relief against
Concepcion Perez de Ulgasan, the judicial administratrix of the estate of the
deceased Alipia Perez, praying that the deeds of sale, annexes “A”, “C” and “E”
of the complaint-wherein certain portions of real property under administration
were sold to them by the heirs of the deceased in 1946-be declared legal and
valid and that the same be confirmed. The complaint alleged, among other things,
that prior to the sales sought to be declared valid, the real estate was
partitioned by the heirs among themselves and by virtue of such partition, the
heirs took possession of their respective shares.

The defendant, in her answer, claimed that the extraju-dicial partition, as
well as the sales made by the alleged heirs of Alipia Perez, was null and void.
Defendant, therefore, asked for the dismissal of the complaint and, as
counterclaim, prayed that for the coconut fruits gathered from the lands
plaintiff Fortunato Layague be sentenced to pay P2,700.00 and plaintiff Santiago
Rombo, P1,800.00 to the estate of the deceased Alipia Perez, including interests
from the commencement of the action, plus costs and expenses of the
litigation.

For failure to file an answer to the counterclaim, the plaintiffs were, upon
motion of the defendant, declared in default and a date was set for the
reception of evidence with respect to the counterclaim.

No trial, however, was held on the main case, because on October 2, 1956, the
plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a stipulation of facts. This
stipulation, upon the request of the parties, became the basis of the lower
court’s judgment rendered on October 17 of the same year, the dispositive part
of which reads:

“En virtud de todo Io expuesto, el Juzgado falla esta causa de-clarando
validas y eficaces las escrituras de venta marcadas Ane-xos “A”, “C” y “E”
otorgadas por Rafael Perez, Eleuterio Perez y Leon Perez, respectivamente, de
los dereehos, interes y partici-paciones que, como herederos de la finada Alipia
Perez, todos y cada uno de ellos tienen o pudieran tener en el Lote No. 1562 de
la Medicion Cadastral de San Carlos, descrito en el Certificado Original de
Titulo No. RO-1147 (23335) de la oficina del Registro de la provincia de Negxos
Occidental. La costas seran tasadas en contra de la demanda.

From this judgment, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals,
contending that the lower court erred:

1. In failing to render judgment with respect to the counterclaim presented by
   the defendant-appellant against the plaintiffs-appellees on which an order of
   default had been entered and evidence presented by the defendant-appellant;
2. In not having rendered judgment in favor of the defendant-appellant against
   the plaintiff Santiago Rombo for PI,320.00 and against the plaintiff Fortunato
   Layague for P4,400.00 for the value of the coconuts they gathered from* the land
   in question during the crop years 1947-1948.

As the case was submitted upon a stipulation of facts and the issue involved
is one of law, the Court of Appeals certified the case to this Court.

The validity of the sales made by the heirs of their respective shares in the
realty under administration is no longer contested by defendant-appellant. The
only question now for determination, as stated by appellant herself in her
brief, is whether or not the trial judge erred in not rendering judgment with
respect to her counterclaim for the value of the fruits gathered by plaintiffs
from the land during the crop year 1947-48.

It is admitted in the stipulation of facts that plaintiffs-appellees were
“during the year 1947-48 up to September 1949” in possession of two-thirds
portion of the land under administration proceedings by virtue of the deeds of
sale executed by the heirs; that during that period, Fortunato Layague gathered
40,000 coconuts which yielded about 8,000 kilos of copra, while Santiago Rombo
gathered 12,000 coconuts which he converted into 2,400 kilos of copra; and that
both of them sold the copra, the price thereof being P55.00 per hundred piculs
at the time. It is likewise admitted that the land in question was in
custodia legis when the heirs sold their interest or participation
therein in 1946. As a matter of fact, the intestate proceedings of the late
Alipia Perez was instituted way back in 1936 and has not yet been closed or
terminated.

Under section 3, Rule 85, of the Rules of Court, the executor or
administrator shall have the right to take possession of the real or personal
property of the deceased so long as it is necessary for the payment of debts and
expenses of administration. Where there are no debts, however, to be paid, there
is no reason for the executor or administrator taking possession of the estate
which should pass to the heirs. (Buenaventura, et al. vs. Ramos, 43
Phil., 704.) The sale made in the instant case by the heirs of their right,
interest or participation in the lands under administration in favor of the
plaintiffs-appellees having been declared valid and there being not even an
intimation that the estate is indebted, we are inclined to rule that the payment
for the value of the fruits gathered by the plaintiffs-appellees as purchasers
to the defendant administratrix is not necessary and might even prove to be
cumbersome. In any event, the quantity of the fruits gathered by appellees is
known and determinable in value. Conceding that the proceeds they received from
the fruits of the estate belong to the estate, the court in the intestate
proceedings has jurisdiction over them and could, if necessary, compel said
appellees to deliver to the administratrix of the estate the necessary portion
of said proceeds for the payment of any claim against the estate. In this
connection, we note that the estate of the deceased has been under
administration proceedings for quite an unreasonably long time. This is patently
against the policy of the Rules of Court to close up the estate as promptly and
economically as possible. As was once held by this Court, “All courts of first
instance should exert themselves to close up estate within twelve months from
the time they are presented, and may refuse to allow any compensation to
executors and administrators who do not actively labor to that end, and they may
even adopt harsher measures.” (Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Abada, 40 Phil.,
124.) The defendant administratrix would, therefore, do well to accomplish the
administration of the estate with the utmost reasonable dispatch, with a view to
an early distribution of the remainder among the persons entitled thereto.

Wherefore, there being no error committed by the trial court in not rendering
judgment on the counterclaim under consideration, the appeal of the
defendant-appellant is dismissed, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.