finals specpro_3 and 4

8/16/2019 Finals SpecPro_3 and 4

1/5

[January 29, 1996] Estate of Hilario Ruiz, Edmund Ruiz, executor,

petitioner, vs !"e #$, %aria &ilar Ruiz'%ontes, et al, respondents

Facts: In 1987, Hilario executed a holographic will naming as his heirs his only son,

Edmond, his adopted daughter, Maria ilar, and his three granddaughters, Maria

!athryn, !andice "l#ertine and Maria "ngeline, all children o$ Edmond %ui&' (hetestator #e)ueathed to his heirs su#stantial cash, personal and real properties and

named Edmond executor o$ his estate' *n "pril 1+, 1988, Hilario %ui& died'

Immediately therea$ter, the cash component o$ his estate was distri#uted among

Edmond and Maria ilar et al' in accordance with the decedents will'

For un-nown reasons, Edmond, did not ta-e any action $or the pro#ate o$ his

$athers holographic will' In 199+, $our years a$ter the testators death, it was Maria

ilar who .led #e$ore the %(! o$ asig, a petition $or the pro#ate and appro/al o$

Hilarios will and $or the issuance o$ letters testamentary to Edmond' *n May 18,

1990, the pro#ate court admitted the will to pro#ate and ordered the issuance o$

letters testamentary to Edmond conditioned upon the .ling o$ a #ond in the amounto$ 2,222'22' (he letters testamentary were issued on 3une +0, 1990'

*n 3uly +8, 1990, Hilario as executor, .led an Ex4arte Motion $or %elease o$ Funds'

It prayed $or the release o$ the rent payments deposited with the !ourt' Maria ilar

opposed the motion and concurrently .led a Motion $or %elease o$ Funds to !ertain

Heirs and Motion $or Issuance o$ !erti.cate o$ "llowance o$ ro#ate 5ill' 6he prayed

$or the release o$ the said rent payments to Maria !athryn, !andice "l#ertine and

Maria "ngeline and $or the distri#ution o$ the testators properties, speci.cally the

alle erde property and the lue %idge apartments, in accordance with the

pro/isions o$ the holographic will'

(he pro#ate court, on ecem#er ++, 1990, ordered the release o$ the $unds to

Edmond #ut only such amount as may #e necessary to co/er the expenses o$

administration and allowances $or support o$ the testators three granddaughters

su#ect to collation and deducti#le $rom their share in the inheritance' (he court,

howe/er, held in a#eyance the release o$ the titles to Maria ilar and the three

granddaughters until the lapse o$ six months $rom the date o$ .rst pu#lication o$ the

notice to creditors' Edmond assailed this decision to the !" which a;rmed the trial

court' Hence, this recourse to the 6!'

I66 grant anallowance $rom the $unds o$ the estate for the support of t"e testator(s

)randc"ildren* #> order the release o$ the titles to certain heirs? and c> grant

possession o$ all properties o$ the estate to the executor o$ the will

%uling: a> =*' It is settled that allowances $or support under 6ection 0 o$ %ule 80

should not #e limited to the minor or incapacitated children o$ the deceased' "rticle

1810 o$ the !i/il !ode o$ the hilippines, the su#stanti/e law in $orce at the time o$


2/5

the testators death, pro/ides that during the li)uidation o$ the conugal partnership,

the deceaseds legitimate spouse and children, regardless o$ their age, ci/il status

or gain$ul employment, are entitled to pro/isional support $rom the $unds o$ the

estate' (he law is rooted on the $act that the right and duty to support, especially

the right to education, su#sist e/en #eyond the age o$ maority'

e that as it may, )randc"ildren are not entitled to provisional support from

t"e funds of t"e decedents estate' (he law clearly limits the allowance to widow

and children and does not extend it to the deceaseds grandchildren, regardless o$

their minority or incapacity' It was error, there$ore, $or the appellate court to sustain

the pro#ate courts order granting an allowance to the grandchildren o$ the testator

pending settlement o$ his estate'

#> =*' "n order releasing titles to properties o$ the estate amounts to an ad/ance

distri#ution o$ the estate which is allowed upon compliance with the conditions set

$orth in %ule 92 o$ the %ules' (hus, @no distri#ution shall #e allowed until the

payment o$ the o#ligations enumerated Ade#ts, $uneral charges, and expenses o$administration, the allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax, i$ any, chargea#le

to the estate in accordance with law> has #een made or pro/ided $or, unless the

distri#utees, or any o$ them, gi/e a #ond, in a sum to #e .xed #y the court,

conditioned $or the payment o$ said o#ligations within such time as the court

directs'@ (he latter part means that, #e$ore payment o$ the said o#ligations, the

distri#ution o$ the estate properties may #e made, #ut only i$ the distri#utees or any

o$ them gi/es a #ond in a sum .xed #y the court conditioned upon the payment o$

said o#ligations within such time as the court directs, or when pro/ision is made to

meet those o#ligations'

In the case at #ar, the pro#ate court ordered the release o$ the titles to the alleerde property and the lue %idge apartments to the pri/ate respondents a$ter the

lapse o$ six months $rom the date o$ .rst pu#lication o$ the notice to creditors' (he

)uestioned order spea-s o$ notice to creditors, not payment o$ de#ts and

o#ligations' It was also too early in the day $or the pro#ate court to order the

release o$ the titles six months a$ter admitting the will to pro#ate'

c> =*' Edmond cannot correctly claim that the assailed order depri/ed him o$ his

right to ta-e possession o$ all the real and personal properties o$ the estate' (he

right o$ an executor or administrator to the possession and management o$ the real

and personal properties o$ the deceased is not a#solute and can only #e exercised

so long as it is necessary $or the payment o$ the de#ts and expenses o$

administration'

Edmond must #e reminded that his right o$ ownership o/er the properties o$ his

$ather is merely inchoate as long as the estate has not #een $ully settled and

partitioned' "s executor, he is a mere trustee o$ his $athers estate' (he $unds o$ the

estate in his hands are trust $unds and he is held to the duties and responsi#ilities o$


3/5

a trustee o$ the highest order' He cannot unilaterally assign to himsel$ and possess

all his parents properties and the $ruits thereo$ without .rst su#mitting an in/entory

and appraisal o$ all real and personal properties o$ the deceased, rendering a true

account o$ his administration, the expenses o$ administration, the amount o$ the

o#ligations and estate tax, all o$ which are su#ect to a determination #y the court

as to their /eracity, propriety and ustness'

[+ctoer 2-, 199.] Heirs of &edro Escanlar, et al, petitioners, vs !"e #$,

/enerosa %artinez, et al, respondents

Facts: 6pouses Buillermo =om#re and ictoriana !ari4an died without issue in 19+C

and 1908, respecti/ely' =om#res heirs include his nephews and grandnephewswhich, $or #re/ity, will #e re$erred to as pri/ate respondents !ari4an' (wo parcels o$

land, denominated as Dot =o' 11 and 117 o$ the a#an-alan !adastre with an

area o$ +9,02 s)uare meters and C2,9C8 s)uare meters, respecti/ely, $ormed part

o$ the estate o$ =om#re and !ari4an' *n 6eptem#er 1, 1978, !ari4ans heirs

executed a eed o$ 6ale o$ %ights, Interests and articipation in $a/or o$ etitioners

Escanlar and Francisco Holgado, who were concurrently the lessees o$ the lots

re$erred to a#o/e' (he sale was $or and in consideration o$ the sum o$ 2,222'22,

the #alance o$ ++,222'22 to #e paid #y the /endees on or #e$ore May, 1979'

etitioners were una#le to pay !ari4an heirs indi/idual shares, amounting to

,222'22 each, #y the due date' Howe/er, said heirs recei/ed at least 1+

installments $rom them a$ter May 1979' y 198+, o$ them were already $ully paid'

eing $ormer lessees, etitioners continued in possession o$ Dot =os' 11 and

117' Interestingly, they continued to pay rent #ased on their lease contract' *n

6eptem#er 12, 1981, they mo/ed to inter/ene in the pro#ate proceedings o$

=om#re and !ari4an as the #uyers o$ pri/ate respondent !ari4ans share in Dot =os'

11 and 117' Howe/er, their motion $or appro/al o$ the sale #e$ore the same

court was opposed #y the !ari4ans'

*n 6eptem#er 1, 198+, the pro#ate court appro/ed a motion .led #y the heirs o$

!ari4an and =om#re to sell their respecti/e shares in the estate' *n 6eptem#er +1,

198+, pri/ate respondents !ari4an, in addition to some heirs o$ Buillermo =om#re,

sold their shares in eight parcels o$ land including Dot =os' 11 and 117 to the

spouses =ey 6arrosa !hua and a)uito !hua $or 1,82,222'22' *ne wee- later, the

/endor4heirs, including pri/ate respondents !ari4an, .led a motion $or appro/al o$

sale o$ hereditary rights, i'e' the sale made on 6eptem#er +1, 198+ to the !huas'

ri/ate respondents !ari4an instituted this case $or cancellation o$ sale against

Escanlar and Holgado on =o/em#er 0, 198+' (hey complained o$ petitioners $ailure


4/5

to pay the #alance o$ the purchase price #y May 01, 1979 and alleged that they

only recei/ed a total o$ 10+,1'22 in cash and goods' etitioners replied that the

!ari4ans, ha/ing #een paid, had no right to resell the su#ect lots? that the !huas

were purchasers in #ad $aith? and that the court appro/al o$ the sale to the !huas

was su#ect to their existing claim o/er said properties'

(he seminal case at #ar was resol/ed #y the trial court in $a/or o$ cancellation o$

the 6eptem#er 1, 1978 sale' 6aid transaction was nulli.ed #ecause it was not

appro/ed #y the pro#ate court as re)uired #y the contested deed o$ sale o$ rights,

interests and participation and #ecause the !ari4ans were not $ully paid'

!onse)uently, the eed o$ 6ale executed #y the heirs o$ =om#re and !ari4an in

$a/or o$ a)uito and =ey !hua, which was appro/ed #y the pro#ate court, was

upheld' From this, the petitioners appealed to the !", which court a;rmed the trial

courts decision' (hus, the petitioners sought this recourse to the 6!'

I66 the sale to petitioners was a contract to sell which reser/ed the

ownership o$ the property to the sellers until $ull payment o$ the purchase price? #>the the deed o$ sale is null and /oid $or not ha/ing #een appro/ed #y the pro#ate

court? c> there was a /alid recission o$ the sale #y the pri/ate repondents !ari4an

%uling: a> =*' In contracts to sell, ownership is retained #y the seller and is not to

pass until the $ull payment o$ the price' 6uch payment is a positi/e suspensi/e

condition, the $ailure o$ which is not a #reach o$ contract #ut simply an e/ent that

pre/ented the o#ligation o$ the /endor to con/ey title $rom ac)uiring #inding $orce'

(he 6eptem#er 1, 1978 sale o$ rights, interests and participation as to 1G+ portion

pro indi/iso o$ the two su#ect lots is a contract o$ sale $or the $ollowing reasons:

First, pri/ate respondents as sellers did not reser/e unto themsel/es the ownership

o$ the property until $ull payment o$ the unpaid #alance o$ ++,222'22' 6econd,there is no stipulation gi/ing the sellers the right to unilaterally rescind the contract

the moment the #uyer $ails to pay within the .xed period' In a contract o$ sale, the

non4payment o$ the price is a resolutory condition which extinguishes the

transaction that, $or a time, existed and discharges the o#ligations created

thereunder' (he remedy o$ an unpaid seller in a contract o$ sale is to see- either

speci.c per$ormance or rescission'

#> =*' (here has arisen here a con$usion in the concepts o$ /alidity and the e;cacy

o$ a contract'


5/5

speci.c properties o$ the estate are sold and not when only ideal and indi/isi#le

shares o$ an heir are disposed o$, which was what precisely happened in this case'

From the $oregoing, it is clear that hereditary rights in an estate can #e /alidly sold

without need o$ court appro/al and that when pri/ate respondents !ari4an sold their

rights, interests and participation in Dot =os' 11 and 117, they could legally sell

the same without the appro/al o$ the pro#ate court'

c> =*' In the instant case, the sellers ga/e the #uyers until May 1979 to pay the

#alance o$ the purchase price' "$ter the latter $ailed to pay installments due, the

$ormer made no udicial demand $or rescission o$ the contract nor did they execute

any notarial act demanding the same, as re)uired under "rticle 19+'

!onse)uently, the #uyers could law$ully ma-e payments e/en a$ter the May 1979

deadline, as in $act they paid se/eral installments to the sellers which the latter

accepted' (hus, upon the expiration o$ the period to pay, the sellers made no mo/e

to rescind #ut continued accepting late payments, an act which cannot #ut #e

construed as a wai/er o$ the right to rescind' 5hen the sellers, instead o$ a/ailing o$

their right to rescind, accepted and recei/ed delayed payments o$ installments

#eyond the period stipulated, and the #uyers were in arrears, the sellers in eect

wai/ed and are now estopped $rom exercising said right to rescind' A(hough the sale

to petitioners was held /alid, it must #e emphasi&ed that what was sold was only

the !ari4ans hereditary shares #eing held pro indi/iso #y them and is a con/eyance

only o$ said ideal shares' 6peci.c or designated portions o$ land were not in/ol/ed'>

finals specpro_3 and 4

Documents