EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA, PETITIONER, VS. CAROLINA VDA. DE FIGURACION, ELENA FIGURACION-ANCHETA, HILARIA A. FIGURACION, FELIPA FIGURACION-MANUEL, QUINTIN FIGURACION AND MARY FI…

Figuracion-Gerilla versus Vda. de Figuracion

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla against her mother Carolina Vda. de Figuracion and her siblings, Elena, Hilaria, Felipa, Quintin and Mary, all surnamed Figuracion. Emilia filed a complaint for partition, annulment of documents, reconveyance, quieting of title and damages over several parcels of land that belonged to her late father, Leandro Figuracion. The case matters because it draws a clean line between two distinct remedies: the action for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, and the settlement of a decedent's estate. It tells the Bar candidate exactly when an heir may compel partition and when she must first submit the estate to settlement.

Procedural History

Emilia filed her complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 49. The trial court rendered judgment nullifying Carolina's affidavit of self-adjudication and her deed of absolute sale over Lot 707, and declared Lots 2299 and 705 as exclusive properties of Leandro and therefore part of his estate. It nevertheless dismissed the complaint for partition, reconveyance and damages, holding that it could not grant the reliefs prayed for without a prior settlement proceeding in which title should first be transferred.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the action for partition as premature. It reversed the trial court, however, on the nullification of the self-adjudication and the deed of sale, sustaining their validity as to Carolina's one-half pro indiviso share, and it partitioned Lot 707 itself. The respondents then elevated that decision to the Supreme Court, and Emilia filed the present petition for review on certiorari, challenging the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of her complaint for partition.

Facts

Spouses Leandro and Carolina Figuracion had six children: Emilia, Elena, Hilaria, Felipa, Quintin and Mary. On August 23, 1955, Leandro executed a deed of quitclaim over his real properties in favor of his six children. When he died in 1958, he left two parcels of land, Lot 2299 and Lot 705 of the Cadastral Survey of Urdaneta, both titled in the name of Leandro Figuracion, married to Carolina Adviento, and both inherited by Leandro from his deceased parents. A portion of Lot 2299 was later sold to Lazaro Adviento, and the remainder continued to be declared in Leandro's name.

The dispute that actually sparked the complaint concerned Lot 707, which had belonged to Eulalio Adviento and passed to his two daughters, Agripina Adviento and Carolina. On November 28, 1961, Agripina executed a quitclaim in favor of Emilia over the eastern half of Lot 707. Agripina died in 1963, single and without issue. Before that death, however, Carolina adjudicated the entire Lot 707 to herself by affidavit under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, and then sold it to Felipa and Hilaria, who caused a new title to be issued in their names.

In February 1971, Emilia and her family went to the United States and stayed for ten years. Returning in 1981, she built a house of strong materials on the eastern half of Lot 707 and continued paying her share of the realty taxes. On May 23, 1994, she filed her complaint, seeking partition of Lots 2299 and 705, nullification of the self-adjudication, the deed of sale and the new title over Lot 707, a declaration that she owned one-half of Lot 707, and damages. The respondents countered that Leandro's estate must first be settled and its expenses accounted for before partition could take place.

Issues

• Whether or not there must be a prior settlement of Leandro's intestate estate, including an accounting of income, expenses, liabilities and taxes, before the properties may be partitioned or distributed among the heirs.
• Whether or not an action for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy where the ownership of a lot remains in dispute.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property.

This is the provision under which Emilia sought partition, and the Court measures her right to compel it against this text.

Section 8 of Rule 69 provides:

Section 8. Accounting for rent and profits in action for partition. In an action for partition, in accordance with this Rule, a party shall recover from another his just share of rents and profits received by such other party from the real estate in question, and the judgment shall include an allowance for such rents and profits.

The Court cites this to show that partition accounts only for income received, and contains no mechanism for charging expenses against the estate.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a prior settlement is indeed required. The right to an inheritance is transmitted immediately to the heirs by operation of law at the moment of the decedent's death, and there is no doubt that Emilia, as an heir of Leandro, has a legal interest in Lot 2299. But that interest does not yet entitle her to compel partition. Partition under Rule 69 may take place by agreement under Section 2, or through commissioners under Sections 3 to 6 when agreement cannot be reached. Neither method specifies a procedure for determining the expenses chargeable to the decedent's estate, such as funeral expenses, inheritance taxes and similar items. Section 8 of Rule 69 allows an accounting of rentals and profits, but not of the expenses for which estate property may be answerable. Where an issue remains as to those expenses, partition is inappropriate. Emilia did not dispute the finding of the Court of Appeals that certain expenses, including those related to her father's final illness and burial, had not been properly settled. The heirs must therefore submit the estate to settlement, because the determination of those expenses cannot be done in an action for partition. The Court added a consolation: the heirs may take possession of the properties even before settlement of accounts, provided they first file a bond conditioned on payment of the estate's obligations.

On the second issue, the Court held that partition is premature when ownership of the lot is still in dispute. The records referred to a case entitled Figuracion versus Alejo then pending in the Court of Appeals, with no information as to its subject, and whatever its issues, that pending dispute over Lot 705 barred partition of that lot.

Doctrine

First, the right to an inheritance is transmitted immediately to the heirs by operation of law at the moment of the decedent's death, but this vested right does not by itself authorize an action for partition while the estate remains unsettled.

Second, an action for partition under Rule 69 is not the proper vehicle for determining the expenses chargeable to a decedent's estate. Where funeral expenses, inheritance taxes and similar obligations remain unsettled, the heirs must first submit the estate to settlement, because partition provides no procedure for that accounting.

Third, partition is premature when ownership of the property is still in dispute.

Fourth, the heirs or distributees may take possession of the properties even before settlement of accounts, provided they first file a bond conditioned on the payment of the estate's obligations.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were affirmed insofar as the partition of Lots 2299 and 705 is concerned, with costs against Emilia; the Court made no ruling on the validity of Carolina's affidavit of self-adjudication and deed of sale over Lot 707 because the related case was still pending before it.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the right to inherit vests at the moment of death, but partition must wait until the estate's expenses are settled, because Rule 69 has no procedure for that accounting. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between an action for partition and estate settlement, and the rule that partition is premature while ownership of the lot is still in dispute.