SUILIONG & CO. VS.

CHIO-TAYSAN
G.R. No. L-4777
November 11, 1908
FACTS:
Avelina Caballero, deceased, owned during her lifetime a certain tract of land, which
was inscribed in her name in the land registry of the city of Manila. On March 27,
1903, she borrowed from Francisca Jose, the intervener and appellant in this action,
1,000 pesos, Mexican currency, and turned over her title deeds to this tract of land
to the lender as security for the loan, but no entry touching the transaction was
noted in the land registry. Avelina Caballero died on the 5 th day of June, 1903, and
thereafter Silvina Chio-Taysn, the defendant in this action, instituted in the Court of
First Instance of Manila an action, known, under the system of civil procedure in
existence prior to the adoption of the present code, as an action for the declaration
of heirship and on the 5th day of August 1903, following order declaring her to be
the only and exclusive heir of Avelina Caballero, deceased.On March 9, 1904, the
registrar of deeds of the city of Manila by virtue of order entered the inscriptions in
the land registry whereby the said Silvina Chio-Taysan is made to appear as the
owner of the land in question. On the 26 th day of May 1904, the said Silvina ChioTaysan borrowed the sum of P2,500 from the Fire and Marine Insurance and Loan
Co. ,of which the plaintiff is the lawfully appointed liquidator, and mortgaged the
land in question as security for the payment of loan. Thereafter the husband of
Silvina Chio-Taysan instituted special proceedings under the provisions of the
present Code of Civil Procedure, for the administration of the estate of Avelina
Caballero, deceased. On the 16 th day of October 1905, he was appointed
administrator. On the 10th day of October, 1906, the plaintiff in this action filed its
complaint against the defendant , Silvin Chio-Taysan, praying for judgment for the
amount loaned her as above set out, and the foreclosure of its mortgage upon the
land. The trial court enteree judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against both the
defendant and the intervener in conformity with the prayer of the complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether one or more heirs could be entitled to be recognized as the owner or
owners of the property of the deceased in an action for declaration of heirship.
HELD:
A judgment in an action for the declaration of heirship in favor of one or more heirs
could not entitle such persons to be recognized as the owner or owners of the
property of the deceased on the same terms as such property was held by the
deceased, for it passes to the heir, under the new civil code, burdened with all the
debts of the deceased, his death having created a lien thereon for the benefit of the
creditor; and indeed an examination of the proceedings prescribed in the new code

of Civil Procedure for the administration and distribution of the estates of deceased
persons leaves no room for doubt that those proceedings are exclusive of all other
judicial proceedings looking to that end, and supersede the judicial proceeding for
the declaration of heirship, as recognized in the old procedure, at least so far as the
proceedings served as a remedy whereby the right of specific persons to succeed to
the rights and obligations of the deceased as his heirs might be judicially
determined and enforced.

UNION BANK V. SANTIBANEZ

452 SCRA 228
FACTS:
On May 31, 1980, the First Countryside Credit Corporation(FCCC) and Efraim
Santibaez entered into a loan agreement in the amount of P128,000.00. The
amount was intended for the payment of one (1) unit Ford 6600 Agricultural
Tractor. In view thereof, Efraim and his son, Edmund, executed a promissory note in
favor of the FCCC, the principal sum payable in five equal annualamortizations. On
Dec. 1980, FCCC and Efraim entered into another loan agreement for the payment
of another unit of Ford 6600 and one unit of a Rotamotor. Again, Efraim and Edmund
executed a promissory note and a Continuing Guaranty Agreement for the later
loan.
In 1981, Efraim died, leaving a holographic will. Testate proceedings commenced
before the RTC of Iloilo City. Edmund was appointed as the special administrator of
the estate. During the pendency of the testate proceedings, the surviving heirs,
Edmund and his sister Florence, executed a Joint Agreement, wherein they agreed
to divide between themselves and take possession of the three (3) tractors: (2)
tractors for Edmund and (1) for Florence. Each of them was to assume the
indebtedness of their late father to FCCC, corresponding to the tractor respectively
taken
by them.In the meantime, a Deed of Assignment with Assumption of Liabilities was
executed by and between FCCC and Union Bank, wherein the FCCC assigned all its
assets and liabilities to Union Bank. Demand letters were sent by Union Bank to
Edmund, but the latter refused to pay. Thus, on February 5, 1988, Union Bank filed a
Complaint for sum of money against the heirs of Efraim Santibaez, Edmund and
Florence, before the RTC of Makati City. Summonses were issued against both, but
the one intended for Edmund was not served since he was in the United States and
there was no information on his address or the date of his return to the Philippines.
Florence filed her Answer and alleged that the loan documents did not bind her
since she was not a party thereto.

Considering that the joint agreement signed by her and her brother Edmund was
not approved by the probate court, it was null and void; hence, she was not liable
to Union Bank under the joint agreement. Union Bank asserts that the obligation
of the deceased had passed to his legitimate heirs (Edmund and Florence) as
provided in Article 774 of the Civil Code; and that the unconditional signing of
the joint agreement estopped Florence, and that she cannot deny her liability under
the said document.In her comment to the petition, Florence maintains thatUnion
Bank is trying to recover a sum of money from the deceased Efraim Santibaez;
thus the claim should have been filed with the probate court.
She
points
out
that
at
the
time
of
the
execution
of the joint agreement there was already an existing probateproceedings. She asser
ts that even if the agreement wasvoluntarily executed by her and her brother
Edmund, it should still have been subjected to the approval of the court as it may
prejudice the estate, the heirs or third parties.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the claim of Union Bank should have been filed with the probate
court before which the testate estate of the late Efraim Santibaez was pending.
Whether or not the agreement between Edmund and Florence (which was in effect,
a partition of the estate) was void considering that it had not been approved by the
probate court.
Whether or not there can be a valid partition among the heirs before the will is
probated.
HELD:
Well-settled is the rule that a probate court has the jurisdiction to determine all
the properties of the deceased, to determine whether they should or should not be
included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered. The said court
isprimarily concerned with the administration, liquidation and distribution of the
estate. In our jurisdiction, the rule is that there can be no valid partition among the
heirs until after the will has been probated. In the present case, Efraim left a
holographic will which contained the provision which reads as follows:
(e)
All
other
properties,
real
or
personal,
which
I
own
and
may be discovered later after my demise, shall be distributed in the proportion
indicated in the immediately preceding paragraph in favor of Edmund and Florence,
mychildren. The above-quoted is an all-encompassing provisionembracing all the
properties left by the decedent which might have escaped his mind at that time he
was
making
his
will,
and
otherproperties he may acquire thereafter. Included therein are thethree (3) subject
tractors.

This being so, any partition involving the said tractors among the heirs is not valid.
The joint agreement executed by Edmund and Florence, partitioning the tractors
amongthemselves, is invalid, specially so since at the time of itsexecution,
there
was already a pending proceeding for the probate of their late fathers holographic
will
covering
the
said
tractors. The Court notes that the loan was contracted by thedecedent. The bank, p
urportedly a creditor of the late EfraimSantibaez, should have thus filed its money
claim with the probate court in accordance with Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised
Rules of Court. The filing of a money claim against the decedents estate in the
probate court is mandatory. This requirement is for the purpose of protecting the
estate of the deceased by informing the executor or administrator of the claims
against it, thus enabling him to examine each claim and to determine whether it is a
proper one which should be allowed. The plain and obvious design of the rule is the
speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the
property to the distributees, legatees, or heirs. Perusing the records of the case,
nothing therein could hold Florence accountable for any liability incurred by her late
father. The documentary evidence presented, particularly the promissory notes and
the continuing guaranty agreement, were executed and signed only by the late
Efraim Santibaez and his son Edmund. As the petitioner failed to file its money
claim with the probate court, at most, it may only go after Edmund as co-maker of
the decedent under the said promissory notes and continuing guaranty

RIOFERIO vs. CA
FACTS:
Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will leaving several personal and real
properties. He also left a widow, respondent Esperanza P. Orfinada, whom he had
seven children who are the herein respondents. Also, the decedent also left his
paramour and their children. They are petitioner Teodora Riofero and co-petitioners
Veronica, Alberto and Rowena. Respondents Alfonso James and Lourdes (legitimate
children of the deceased) discovered that petitioner Teodora and her children
executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased Person with Quitclaim
involving the properties of the estate of the decedent located in Dagupan City.
Respondent Alfonso filed a Petition for Letters of Administration. Respondents filed a
Complaint for the Annulment/Rescission of Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate.
Petitioners raised the affirmative defense that respondents are not the real partiesin-interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of the pendency of
the administration proceedings.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the heirs may bring suit to recover property of the estate pending
the appointment of an administrator.

HELD:
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." The provision in turn is
the foundation of the principle that the property, rights and obligations to the extent
and value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to
another or others by his will or by operation of law.
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.