GAVINA FERNANDEZ, AS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED PEDRO PEÑA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EULOGIO TRIA, AS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE D…

Fernandez versus Tria

The Case

This is the case of Fernandez versus Tria, decided in March 1912. Gavina Fernandez, as judicial administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband Pedro Peña, sued Eulogio Tria, as judicial administrator of the estate of his deceased wife Francisca Peña, to recover the ownership and possession of certain lands and animals. The real question is not who owns the land in the end, but who may hold it while the estate of Pedro Peña is under administration. The case matters because it fixes a rule every reviewee must know: during the settlement of an estate, the property belongs to the estate in the hands of the administrator, and the heirs cannot claim their shares, or interfere with the property, before the estate is liquidated and distributed.

Procedural History

Gavina Fernandez, as judicial administratrix, filed the complaint in the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines, praying for ownership and possession of the property, for two thousand pesos in damages, and for costs. The defendant answered with a general denial. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of Pedro Peña, declaring that she was entitled to possession of the real property described in the complaint during the probate proceedings, and ordering the defendant to deliver it to her. The defendant prepared a bill of exceptions and appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning two errors: that the trial court declared the plaintiff administratrix the owner of the land, and that it denied his motion for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was not sustained by the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, with costs against the appellant. Justice Moreland dissented.

Facts

Clemente Peña died owning real estate, cattle, and other personal property. Among his heirs was his son Pedro Peña. When the estate of Clemente Peña was divided, Pedro had already died, so his portion passed to his daughter Francisca Peña, then a minor. A guardian, Ramon Ortiz, was appointed and administered the property that came to Francisca through her father. Francisca later married Eulogio Tria and died in March 1902.

After Francisca's death, her surviving husband Eulogio Tria applied in January 1903 for appointment as judicial administrator of her intestate estate, and he was appointed. He presented an inventory that included seven parcels of land, but the commissioners of appraisal appraised thirty-four parcels, and there the proceedings of that administration terminated. In January 1907, Gavina Fernandez, widow of Pedro Peña, applied for administration of the property Pedro had left by a will executed and probated under the late sovereignty, and she was appointed. In the same instrument she asked for the partition of Pedro's estate, and there the proceedings terminated. In July 1908 she filed this suit as judicial administratrix.

The trial court found that the land belonged to Clemente Peña and, under his will, passed to Pedro Peña as heir; that it was delivered first to Ramon Ortiz as guardian of Francisca and later to her, aided by her husband Eulogio, in whose possession it now is as judicial administrator of Francisca's intestate estate; and that under Pedro Peña's will his heirs were his widow Gavina Fernandez and his legitimate daughter Francisca. The property sued for is the very property listed in the inventory Eulogio filed at Francisca's death, in the appraisal made in those proceedings, and in the turnover made by the guardian to the spouses' attorney in fact.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring the plaintiff administratrix the owner of the land sought to be recovered.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial on the ground that the judgment is not sustained by the evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 641 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

When a will has been proved and allowed, the court shall issue letters testamentary thereon to the person named as executor therein, if he accepts the trust and gives the bond required by law. The term executor in this Act shall include an administrator with the will annexed.

This authorized the appointment of Gavina Fernandez as administratrix with the will annexed of Pedro Peña's estate.

Section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

If no executor is named in the will, or if a person dies intestate, the administration shall first be granted to the surviving husband or wife.

This supported granting administration to the widow, Gavina Fernandez.

Section 668 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

Every executor or administrator, unless he is residuary legatee and has given the bond prescribed for the residuary legatee, shall, within three months after his appointment, return to the court a true inventory of the real estate and all the goods, chattels, rights and credits of the deceased which come into his possession or knowledge.

This defines the administrator's duty over all property of the deceased that comes into his possession.

Section 702 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

An executor or administrator may commence, prosecute, or defend, in the right of the deceased, actions which survive to such executor or administrator, and are necessary for the recovery and protection of the property or rights of the deceased, and may prosecute or defend such actions or suits commenced in the lifetime of the deceased.

This is the authority for the administratrix to bring this suit to recover the estate's property.

Section 703 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

Actions to recover the title or possession of real estate, buildings, or any interest therein, actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal, and actions to recover the possession of specific articles of personal property, shall survive, and may be commenced and prosecuted by or against the executor or administrator.

This makes the action to recover possession of the land survive in favor of the administratrix.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court made no declaration of ownership. It merely concluded that the plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of Pedro Peña, was entitled to possession of the property so that she might act as administratrix during the probate proceedings, and that when the debts had been paid, if any existed, and the proceedings terminated, the remaining property should be divided among the heirs. The Court explained that Francisca Peña received all the property that Pedro's father had left him, but that only half of it belonged to Francisca under Pedro's express testamentary disposition; the other half belonged to Gavina Fernandez. To secure that half, Gavina instituted the special proceedings in which she was appointed judicial administratrix. The Court quoted its own earlier ruling:

During the period of administration the heirs, devisees, and legatees have no right to interfere with the administrator or executor in the discharge of his duties. They have no right, without his consent, to the possession of any part of the estate, real or personal. The theory of the present system is that the property is all in the hands of the court, and must stay there until the affairs of the deceased are adjusted and liquidated, and then the net balance is turned over to the persons by law entitled to it.

Until the estate is fully settled and a final decree of distribution is entered, the Court said, it cannot be determined which property belongs to Francisca's intestate estate; until then there is no property belonging to Francisca or to Gavina, but only property belonging to the intestate estate of Pedro Peña. To assert rights of ownership and possession in favor of Francisca before determining what property may fall to her from Pedro's estate is, in the Court's words, a plain absurdity that does not require demonstration, just as an effect cannot precede its cause.

On the second issue, the Court held that no error was committed in denying the new trial, because the evidence sufficiently sustained the conclusions in the judgment.

Doctrine

First, upon the probate of a will the court must appoint an executor or administrator with the will annexed, and if no executor is named, or the person dies intestate, administration is granted first to the surviving husband or wife. Second, the executor or administrator has, under the direction of the court, full administration and control of the deceased's property, real and personal, until a final decree of distribution; during administration the heirs, devisees, and legatees have no right to interfere with the administrator or to possess any part of the estate without his consent. Third, the administrator may commence and prosecute, in the right of the deceased, actions necessary for the recovery and protection of the estate's property, including actions to recover the title or possession of real estate. Fourth, an heir cannot claim a share in the estate, or assert ownership over specific property derived from it, before the estate has been liquidated and the heirs legally assigned their respective portions.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, with costs against the appellant, so that Gavina Fernandez, as administratrix, won possession of the property for the estate of Pedro Peña.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the property of a deceased person is all in the hands of the court during administration, and the heirs cannot interfere with the administrator or take possession without his consent. Examiners use this case to test the powers and duties of an executor or administrator, the rule that no heir may claim a share before final distribution, and the principle that an effect cannot precede its cause.