Guilas v. Judge of CFI  Alejandro Lopez claims that, by virtue of the order.

which approved the project

January 31, 1972|Makasiar, J. | Statutory Rules of Exclusion of partition submitted by both Alejandro and Juanita and directed that the
Digester: Yee, Jenine records of the case be archived upon payment of the estate and inheritance taxes,
and the order of December 15, 1960 which "ordered closed and terminated the
SUMMARY: Jacinta executed a will instituting her husband Alejandro as her sole present case", the testate proceedings had already been closed and terminated
heir. The couple adopted herein petitioner Juanita. Jacinta died and her will was and as a consequence to be the executor of the estate
admitted to probate. A project of partition was executed by both Alejandro and  Juanita contends that the actual delivery and distribution of the hereditary shares
Juanita, wherein Juanita was given two lots. The probate court approved the project to the heirs, and not the order of the court declaring as closed and terminated the
and ordered closed and terminated the present case. In the testate proceeding, Juanita proceedings, determines the termination of the probate proceedings
then filed a petition praying that the two lots be adjudicated to her. Alejandro
contends that the he cannot be directed to do so because the case was already --------------------------------------not sure if
terminated. The SC held that the probate proceeding still continues. important---------------------------------------------
DOCTRINE: The finality of the approval of the project of partition by itself alone  Meanwhile, noting that a prejudicial question existed (Annulment of project
does not terminate the probate proceeding. As long as the order of the distribution of filed before the filing of the petition for the delivery of the share/Annulment
the estate has not been complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed being the prejudicial question), the lower court, in the civil case for the
closed and terminated. annulment of the project paritition, set such case for trial and suspended the
petition for delivery.
FACTS:  On June 11, 1965, Juanita filed an amended complaint, where she acknowledges
 Jacinta Limson de Lopez was married to Alejandro Lopez y Siongco. Jacinta the partial legality and validity of the project of partition insofar as the allocation
executed a will instituting her husband Alejandro as her sole heir and executor. in her favor of the Lots Nos. 3368 and 3441, the delivery of which she is
They had no children of their own and so they legally adopted herein petitioner seeking.
Juanita Lopez.  In a motion, Juanita questioned the order of the lower court setting the civil case
 The aforementioned will was then admitted to probate and the surviving for trial on the ground that while the said order considered her action for
husband, Alejandro Lopez y Siongco, was appointed executor. annulment of the project of partition as a prejudicial question, her filing an
 Even though the adopted daughter (Juanita) was not included in the will, a amended complaint on June 11, 1965 in civil case No. 2539 wherein she
project of partition was executed by both Alejandro Lopez and Juanita Lopez admitted the partial legality and validity of the project of partition with respect
Guilas, which recognized the right of Juanita Lopez to inherit from Jacinta. to the adjudication to her of the two lots as her share, rendered said civil case
 Lots Nos. 3368 and 3441 (Jacinta's paraphernal property) were adjudicated to No. 2539 no longer a prejudicial question to her petition of July 20, 1964 for
Juanita Lopez-Guilas. the delivery of her share
 The rest of the estate of the deceased were allotted to Don Alejandro. (see notes  In an order dated April 27, 1966, the lower court denied Juanita's motion to set
for specific properties) aside the order of October 2, 1964 on the ground that the parties themselves
 Testate Proc. No. 1426/Probate court: Approved project and directed that the agreed to suspend resolution of her petition for the delivery of her shares
records of the case be sent to the archives, upon payment of the estate and until after the civil action for annulment of the project of partition has been
inheritance taxes. It also ordered the case closed and terminated. finally settled and decided
 Herein petitioner Juanita Lopez-Guilas filed a separate ordinary action to set  Juanita filed a motion dated May 9, 1966 for the reconsideration of the order
aside and annul the project of partition, on the ground of lesion, perpetration dated April 27, 1966
and fraud, and pray further that Alejandro Lopez be ordered to submit a  Hence, this petition for certiorari and mandamus.
statement of accounts of all the crops and to deliver immediately to Juanita
lots nos. 3368 and 3441 of the Bacolor Cadastre, which were allocated to her RULING: Civil case continued. The two lots should be delivered to Juanita.
under the project of partition (p. 132, rec.).
 In the testate Proceedings, Juanita filed a petition praying that Alejandro Lopez Whether the probate proceeding still continues—YES. The order dated
be directed to deliver to her the actual possession of said lots nos. 3368 and December 15, 1960 of the probate court closing and terminating the probate
3441. case did not legally terminate the testate proceedings, for her share under the
project of partition has not been delivered to her.
 The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after  consisting of 28 other parcels of lands with a total assessed valuation of
the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs P69,020.00 and a combined area of 743,924.67 square meters, as well as
entitled to receive the same. personal properties including a 1953 Buick car valued at P2,500.00
 The finality of the approval of the project of partition by itself alone does
not terminate the probate proceeding. As long as the order of the
distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the probate
proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated; because a judicial
partition is not final and conclusive and does not prevent the heir from bringing
an action to obtain his share, provided the prescriptive period therefor has not
elapsed.
 The better practice, however, for the heir who has not received his share, is to
demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate or administration
proceedings, or for re-opening of the probate or administrative proceedings if it
had already been closed, and not through an independent action, which would be
tried by another court or Judge which may thus reverse a decision or order of the
probate on intestate court already final and executed and re-shuffle properties
long ago distributed and disposed of.
 Section 1 of Rule 90 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964 as worded, which
secures for the heirs or legatees the right to "demand and recover their respective
shares from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same
in his possession", restates the aforecited doctrines.

Whether Juanita is guilty of laches—NO.

 The motion filed by petitioner for the delivery of her share was filed on July 20,
1964, which is just more than 3 years from August 28, 1961 when the amended
project of partition was approve and within 5 years from April 23, 1960 when
the original project of partition was approved. Clearly, her right to claim the two
lots allocated to her under the project of partition had not yet expired. And in the
light of Section 1 of Rule 90 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964 and the
jurisprudence above cited,

Whether the civil case should continue despite the amended complaint of
Juanita—NO.
 While it is true that the order dated October 2, 1964 by agreement of the parties
suspended resolution of her petition for the delivery of her shares until after the
decision in the civil action for the annulment of the project of partition she filed
on April 10, 1964; the said order lost its validity and efficacy when the herein
petitioner filed on June 11, 1965 an amended complaint in said Civil Case 2539
wherein she recognized the partial legality and validity of the said project of
partition insofar as the allocation in her favor of lots Nos. 3368 and 3441 in the
delivery of which she has been insisting all along.

NOTES: