EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-49190. December 12, 1946. ]
BENITO M. ARCILLA, ETC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. PABLO ANGELES DAVID, Judge of First Instance of Pampanga, ET AL., Respondents.
Eufrasio Ocampo, for Petitioners.
Artemio C. Macalino, for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; SALE OF ESTATE, AUTHORITY FOR; NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES NECESSARY FOR ORIGINAL AND REPRODUCED PETITIONS. — In order that the sale of the estate under administration or any part thereof may be validly authorized by the court, notice of the petition for authority to sell as required by Rules of Court No. 90 must be given to all interested parties; and this requirement is applicable to both original and reproduced petitions.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; HEIRS ARE INTERESTED PARTIES. — The allegation of respondents that the legitimate children of the deceased A. H. were not entitled to be notified of the motion of administratrix M. E. dated November 3, 1943, because said children are not parties that must be notified, is inacceptable in law. Are there more and better interested parties in a proposed sale of the properties of the deceased than the children and universal heirs of the same.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; HEIRS ARE INTERESTED PARTIES. — The allegation of respondents that the legitimate children of the deceased A. H. were not entitled to be notified of the motion of administratrix M. E. dated November 3, 1943, because said children are not parties that must be notified, is inacceptable in law. Are there more and better interested parties in a proposed sale of the properties of the deceased than the children and universal heirs of the same.
D E C I S I O N
PERFECTO, J.:
Petitioners pray for the annulment of the orders issued on December 6, 1943, and on February 29,1944, by Judge P. Angeles David, of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in the Intestate of Amada Hilario, special proceedings No. 6976 of said court.
Upon motion filed by the administratrix of the estate of Manual Tan Cungco, respondent judge issued the order of December 6, 1943, authorizing the administrator of the Intestate of Amada Hilario to sell, within ten days, to said administratrix lots Nos. 822 and 892, and 4/9 of lot No. 583, located in Angela, Pampanga, and respectively registered under transfer certificates Nos. 9379, 9380, and original certificate No. 360, of the Register of Deeds of Pampanga, for the amount of P6,750.
Upon motion of the same administratrix of the Testate of Manuel Tan Cungco, the respondent judge issued the order of February 29, 1944, ordering Benito M. Arcilla, administrator of the intestate of Amada Hilario, to issue a deed of sale in favor of the Testate of Manuel Tan Cungco of the properties above mentioned and to submit said deed of sale to the court for approval within ten days, it appearing that the administratrix had deposited with the clerk of court the amount of P6,750 as consideration for the same.
Petitioners impugn the validity of the two orders in question on the ground that they were issued in violation of section 7 of Rule 90, because the administrator of the Intestate of Amada Hilario did not file the petition as required in subsection (a) thereof, the court did not fix the time and place for hearing as provided in subsection (b), and has not declared that the sale in question appears to be necessary or beneficial, and in violation of section 5 of Rule 26, because seven of the eight petitioners who are the legitimate children and legal heirs of the deceased Amada Hilario were not notified of the motion filed by administratrix Marciana Escoto of the Testate of Manuel Tan Cungco on November 3, 1943, nor of the order which, upon said motion, was issued by the respondent judge on December 6, 1943.
Section 7 of Rule 90 and section 5 of Rule 26 provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC. 7. Regulations for granting authority to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber estate. — The court having jurisdiction of the estate of the deceased may authorize the executor or administrator to sell personal estate, or sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber real estate, in cases provided by these rules and when it appears necessary or beneficial, under the following regulations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(a) The executor of administrator shall file a written petition setting forth the debts due from the deceased, the expenses of administration, the legacies, the value of the personal estate, the situation of the estate to be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered, and such other facts as show that the sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance is necessary or beneficial;
"(b) The court shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such petition, and cause notice stating the nature of the petition, the reason for the same, and the time and place of hearing, to be given personally or by mail to the persons interested, and may cause such further notice to be given, by publication or otherwise, as it shall deem proper;
"(c) If the court requires it, the executor or administrator shall give an additional bond, in such sum as the court directs, conditioned that such executor or administrator will account for the proceeds of the sale, mortgage or other encumbrance;
"(d) If the requirements in the preceding subdivisions of this section have been complied with, the court, by order stating such compliance, may authorize the executor or administrator to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber, in proper cases, such part of the estate as is deemed necessary, and in case of sale the court may authorize it to be public or private, as would be most beneficial to all parties concerned. The executor or administrator shall be furnished with a certified copy of such order;
"(e) If the estate is to be sold at auction, the mode of giving notice of the time and place of the sale shall be governed by the provisions concerning notice of execution sale;
"(f) There shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the province in which the real estate thus sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered is situated, a certified copy of the order of the court, together with the deed of the executor or administrator for such real estate, which shall be as valid as if the deed had been executed by the deceased in his lifetime."cralaw virtua1aw library
"SEC 5. Contents of notice. — The notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion." (Rule 26.)
The violations of section 7 of Rule 90 and section 5 of Rule 26, as alleged by petitioners, are conclusively borne out by the record and, therefore, there cannot be any question that the respondent judge, in issuing the two orders complained of, acted in excess of his jurisdiction.
Respondents’ contention to the effect that the motion of administratrix Marciana Escoto dated November 3, 1943, need not comply with the rule provisions above mentioned, because it is a mere reproduction of a petition filed by administrator Benito M. Arcilla in August, 1941, with the express conformity of the guardian ad litem of the minor children of Amada Hilario, which was denied on August 11, 1941 l, is without merit, not only because there are substantial references between the two pleadings, but the order of denial had disposed of finally said petition, so much so that months later, that is, on November 17, 1941, Manuel Tan Cungco filed in the intestate of Amada Hilario a petition to authorize the sale of the properties above mentioned to Dr. Magdaleno Bundalian at the same price of P6,750, alleging that he had transferred his right to buy and acquire the properties to him.
Since then, it appears that no further action had been taken until administratrix Marciana Escoto filed her motion on November 3, 1943, about two years later, during which time many important events happened — the Philippines was invaded by the Japanese armed forces, prices and values were hiked to unbelievable levels, and the currency in 1943 was not the currency in 1941 before the war broke out. As a matter of fact petitioners alleged that the value of the properties has increased to P20,000.
Besides, even in the hypothesis that the theory of reproduction can be accepted, it is no reason for dispensing with the rules, which are effective and applicable to original motions and to reproduced ones alike.
The allegation of respondents that the legitimate children of the deceased Amada Hilario were not entitled to be notified of the motion of administratrix Marciana Escoto dated November 3, 1943, because said children are not parties that must be notified, is inacceptable in law. Are there more and better interested parties in a proposed sale of the properties of the deceased than the children and universal heirs of the same?
The orders of December 6, 1943, and February 29, 1944, issued by the respondent judge in the Intestate of Amada Hilario, special proceedings No. 6976 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, are declared null and void, with costs against administratrix Marciana Esto of the Estate of Manuel Tan Cungco.
Moran, C.J., Hilado, Bengzon, Briones, Padilla and Tauson JJ concur.
PABLO, M., concurrente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
En el intestado de Amada Hilario (actuacionespecial No. 6976 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Pampanga) fue nombrado administrador su conyugue superstite, Benito M. Arcilla y curador ad litem de sus siete hijos menores, Artemio Hilario.
En febrero 10, 1941, Benito M. Arcilla, por si y como curador ad litem de sus hijos menores corgo una escritura de convenio del tenor siguiuente:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"IV. Que en consideracion de la suma de quinientos pesos (P500) que este acto recibido Benito M. Arcilla Tan Cungco, el primero se compromete;
"1.
Upon motion filed by the administratrix of the estate of Manual Tan Cungco, respondent judge issued the order of December 6, 1943, authorizing the administrator of the Intestate of Amada Hilario to sell, within ten days, to said administratrix lots Nos. 822 and 892, and 4/9 of lot No. 583, located in Angela, Pampanga, and respectively registered under transfer certificates Nos. 9379, 9380, and original certificate No. 360, of the Register of Deeds of Pampanga, for the amount of P6,750.
Upon motion of the same administratrix of the Testate of Manuel Tan Cungco, the respondent judge issued the order of February 29, 1944, ordering Benito M. Arcilla, administrator of the intestate of Amada Hilario, to issue a deed of sale in favor of the Testate of Manuel Tan Cungco of the properties above mentioned and to submit said deed of sale to the court for approval within ten days, it appearing that the administratrix had deposited with the clerk of court the amount of P6,750 as consideration for the same.
Petitioners impugn the validity of the two orders in question on the ground that they were issued in violation of section 7 of Rule 90, because the administrator of the Intestate of Amada Hilario did not file the petition as required in subsection (a) thereof, the court did not fix the time and place for hearing as provided in subsection (b), and has not declared that the sale in question appears to be necessary or beneficial, and in violation of section 5 of Rule 26, because seven of the eight petitioners who are the legitimate children and legal heirs of the deceased Amada Hilario were not notified of the motion filed by administratrix Marciana Escoto of the Testate of Manuel Tan Cungco on November 3, 1943, nor of the order which, upon said motion, was issued by the respondent judge on December 6, 1943.
Section 7 of Rule 90 and section 5 of Rule 26 provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC. 7. Regulations for granting authority to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber estate. — The court having jurisdiction of the estate of the deceased may authorize the executor or administrator to sell personal estate, or sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber real estate, in cases provided by these rules and when it appears necessary or beneficial, under the following regulations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(a) The executor of administrator shall file a written petition setting forth the debts due from the deceased, the expenses of administration, the legacies, the value of the personal estate, the situation of the estate to be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered, and such other facts as show that the sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance is necessary or beneficial;
"(b) The court shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such petition, and cause notice stating the nature of the petition, the reason for the same, and the time and place of hearing, to be given personally or by mail to the persons interested, and may cause such further notice to be given, by publication or otherwise, as it shall deem proper;
"(c) If the court requires it, the executor or administrator shall give an additional bond, in such sum as the court directs, conditioned that such executor or administrator will account for the proceeds of the sale, mortgage or other encumbrance;
"(d) If the requirements in the preceding subdivisions of this section have been complied with, the court, by order stating such compliance, may authorize the executor or administrator to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber, in proper cases, such part of the estate as is deemed necessary, and in case of sale the court may authorize it to be public or private, as would be most beneficial to all parties concerned. The executor or administrator shall be furnished with a certified copy of such order;
"(e) If the estate is to be sold at auction, the mode of giving notice of the time and place of the sale shall be governed by the provisions concerning notice of execution sale;
"(f) There shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the province in which the real estate thus sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered is situated, a certified copy of the order of the court, together with the deed of the executor or administrator for such real estate, which shall be as valid as if the deed had been executed by the deceased in his lifetime."cralaw virtua1aw library
"SEC 5. Contents of notice. — The notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion." (Rule 26.)
The violations of section 7 of Rule 90 and section 5 of Rule 26, as alleged by petitioners, are conclusively borne out by the record and, therefore, there cannot be any question that the respondent judge, in issuing the two orders complained of, acted in excess of his jurisdiction.
Respondents’ contention to the effect that the motion of administratrix Marciana Escoto dated November 3, 1943, need not comply with the rule provisions above mentioned, because it is a mere reproduction of a petition filed by administrator Benito M. Arcilla in August, 1941, with the express conformity of the guardian ad litem of the minor children of Amada Hilario, which was denied on August 11, 1941 l, is without merit, not only because there are substantial references between the two pleadings, but the order of denial had disposed of finally said petition, so much so that months later, that is, on November 17, 1941, Manuel Tan Cungco filed in the intestate of Amada Hilario a petition to authorize the sale of the properties above mentioned to Dr. Magdaleno Bundalian at the same price of P6,750, alleging that he had transferred his right to buy and acquire the properties to him.
Since then, it appears that no further action had been taken until administratrix Marciana Escoto filed her motion on November 3, 1943, about two years later, during which time many important events happened — the Philippines was invaded by the Japanese armed forces, prices and values were hiked to unbelievable levels, and the currency in 1943 was not the currency in 1941 before the war broke out. As a matter of fact petitioners alleged that the value of the properties has increased to P20,000.
Besides, even in the hypothesis that the theory of reproduction can be accepted, it is no reason for dispensing with the rules, which are effective and applicable to original motions and to reproduced ones alike.
The allegation of respondents that the legitimate children of the deceased Amada Hilario were not entitled to be notified of the motion of administratrix Marciana Escoto dated November 3, 1943, because said children are not parties that must be notified, is inacceptable in law. Are there more and better interested parties in a proposed sale of the properties of the deceased than the children and universal heirs of the same?
The orders of December 6, 1943, and February 29, 1944, issued by the respondent judge in the Intestate of Amada Hilario, special proceedings No. 6976 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, are declared null and void, with costs against administratrix Marciana Esto of the Estate of Manuel Tan Cungco.
Moran, C.J., Hilado, Bengzon, Briones, Padilla and Tauson JJ concur.
Separate Opinions
PABLO, M., concurrente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
En el intestado de Amada Hilario (actuacionespecial No. 6976 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Pampanga) fue nombrado administrador su conyugue superstite, Benito M. Arcilla y curador ad litem de sus siete hijos menores, Artemio Hilario.
En febrero 10, 1941, Benito M. Arcilla, por si y como curador ad litem de sus hijos menores corgo una escritura de convenio del tenor siguiuente:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"IV. Que en consideracion de la suma de quinientos pesos (P500) que este acto recibido Benito M. Arcilla Tan Cungco, el primero se compromete;
"1.
