Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Riofero V CA

    Uploaded by

    Elah Viktoria
    This case discusses whether heirs may bring suit to recover property of an estate pending the appointment of an administrator. [1] The Court ruled that heirs have legal standing to represent the rights and properties of the deceased pending the appointment of an administrator according to Article 777 of the Civil Code. [2] Even if an administrator is appointed, jurisprudence recognizes exceptions when the administrator refuses to bring suit or is alleged to have participated in the act complained of. [3] The necessity for heirs to seek judicial relief to recover estate property is compelling when there is no administrator appointed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Riofero V CA

    Uploaded by

    Elah Viktoria
    49 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether heirs may bring suit to recover property of an estate pending the appointment of an administrator. [1] The Court ruled that heirs have legal standing to represent the rights and properties of the deceased pending the appointment of an administrator according to Article 777 of the Civil Code. [2] Even if an administrator is appointed, jurisprudence recognizes exceptions when the administrator refuses to bring suit or is alleged to have participated in the act complained of. [3] The necessity for heirs to seek judicial relief to recover estate property is compelling when there is no administrator appointed.

    Original Description:

    ri8o

    Original Title

    Riofero v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether heirs may bring suit to recover property of an estate pending the appointment of an administrator. [1] The Court ruled that heirs have legal standing to represent the rights and properties of the deceased pending the appointment of an administrator according to Article 777 of the Civil Code. [2] Even if an administrator is appointed, jurisprudence recognizes exceptions when the administrator refuses to bring suit or is alleged to have participated in the act complained of. [3] The necessity for heirs to seek judicial relief to recover estate property is compelling when there is no administrator appointed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views2 pages

    Riofero V CA

    Uploaded by

    Elah Viktoria
    This case discusses whether heirs may bring suit to recover property of an estate pending the appointment of an administrator. [1] The Court ruled that heirs have legal standing to represent the rights and properties of the deceased pending the appointment of an administrator according to Article 777 of the Civil Code. [2] Even if an administrator is appointed, jurisprudence recognizes exceptions when the administrator refuses to bring suit or is alleged to have participated in the act complained of. [3] The necessity for heirs to seek judicial relief to recover estate property is compelling when there is no administrator appointed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    RIOFERO VS.

    CA
    G.R. No. 129008 - January 13, 2004

    Ponente: J. Tinga

    FACTS:

    Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will. Leaving several personal


    and real properties. He also left a widow and with whom he had seven
    children who are the herein respondents.

    Respondents Alfonso James and Lourdes Orfinada discovered that


    petitioner Teodora Rioferio and her children executed an Extrajudicial
    Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim involving the
    properties of the estate of the decedent .. Respondents also found out that
    petitioners were able to obtain a loan from the Rural Bank of Mangaldan
    Inc. by executing a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties subject of the
    extra-judicial settlement.

    Alfonso Clyde P. Orfinada III, Respondent filed a Petition for


    Letters of Administration praying that letters of administration
    encompassing the estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. be issued to him.

    Petitioners averred that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion


    in issuing the assailed order which denied the dismissal of the case on the
    ground that the proper party to file the complaint for the annulment of the
    extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the deceased is the estate of the
    decedent and not the respondents.

    The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision stating that it


    discerned no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
    jurisdiction by the public respondent judge when he denied petitioners
    motion to set affirmative defenses for hearing in view of its discretionary
    nature.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the heirs may bring suit to recover property of the estate
    pending the appointment of an administrator is the issue in this case.

    RULING:
    YES. Petitioners vehemently fault the lower court for denying their
    motion to set the case for preliminary hearing on their affirmative defense
    that the proper party to bring the action is the estate of the decedent and not
    the respondents. Just as no blame of abuse of discretion can be laid on the
    lower courts doorstep for not hearing petitioners affirmative defense, it
    cannot likewise be faulted for recognizing the legal standing of the
    respondents as heirs to bring the suit.

    Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without doubt


    have legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in
    accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil Code that
    (t)he rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of
    the decedent. Even if administration proceedings have already been
    commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet
    been appointed. This is the proper modality despite the total lack of
    advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation. In fact, in the
    case of Gochan v. Young this Court recognized the legal standing of the
    heirs to represent the rights and properties of the decedent under
    administration pending the appointment of an administrator.

    Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence recognizes two


    exceptions, viz: (1) if the executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to
    bring suit (Pascual v. Pascual); and (2) when the administrator is alleged to
    have participated in the act complained of (Velasquez v. George) and he is
    made a party defendant (Borromeo v. Borromeo). Evidently, the necessity
    for the heirs to seek judicial relief to recover property of the estate is as
    compelling when there is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where
    there is an appointed administrator but he is either disinclined to bring suit or
    is one of the guilty parties himself.

    You might also like