Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

Spouses Leandro and respondent Carolina Figuracion had 6 children. Leandro executed a deed of quitclaim over his real properties in favor of his six children. When he died in 1958, he left behind two parcels of land: (1) Lot 2299 and (2) Lot 705. Leandro sold a portion of Lot 1 to Lazaro Adviento. What gave rise to the complaint of partition is a dispute between 2 of the children Emilia and Mary rose over the eastern half of Lot 707.

​

In 1971, Emilia Gerilla (herein petitioner) and her family stayed in the US for 10 years. Upon return she built a house made of strong materials on the eastern half-portion of Lot 707. She continued paying her share of the realty taxes thereon. Emilia sought the extrajudicial partition of all properties held in common by her and respondents. She filed a complaint in the RTC of Urdaneta City for partition, annulment of documents, reconveyance, quieting of title and damages against respondents, praying, among others for a declaration that petitioner was the owner of one-half of Lot 707 and damages.

​

Respondents contended that Leandro’s estate should first undergo settlement proceedings before partition among the heirs could take place. They also claimed that an accounting of expenses chargeable to the estate was necessary for such settlement. Among other things, respondents wanted the petitioner to share in the expenses incurred for the care of their parents during the ten years she stayed in the US.

​

While petitioner wanted her gross share without first contributing to the said expenses.

​

The RTC dismissed the complaint for partition, reconveyance and damages on the ground that it could not grant the reliefs prayed for by petitioner without any (prior) settlement proceedings wherein the transfer of title of the properties should first be effected.

​

CA upheld the dismissal of petitioner’s action for partition for being premature.

​

ISSUE:

W/N partition is proper when there remains an issue to the expenses chargeable to the estate.

​

HELD:

No. In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable to the estate, partition is inappropriate. While petitioner points out that the estate is allegedly without any debt and she and respondents are Leandro Figuracion’s only legal heirs, she does not dispute the finding of the CA that “certain expenses” including those related to her father’s final illness and burial have not been properly settled. Thus, the heirs (petitioner and respondents) have to submit their father’s estate to settlement because the determination of these expenses cannot be done in an action for partition.

​

In estate settlement proceedings, there is a proper procedure for the accounting of all expenses for which the estate must answer. If it is any consolation at all to petitioner, the heirs or distributees of the properties may take possession thereof even before the settlement of accounts, as long as they first file a bond conditioned on the payment of the estate’s obligations.