You are on page 1of 2

Sandejas v Lina

Doctrine: . In settling the estate of the deceased, a probate court has jurisdiction over
matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of its recognized powers. Such matters
include selling, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering realty belonging to the estate.
Facts:
On February 17, 1981, Eliodoro Sandejas, Sr. filed a petition in the lower court praying
that letters of administration be issued in his favor for the settlement of the estate of his
wife, REMEDIOS R. SANDEJAS. Letters of Administration were issued by the lower
court appointing Eliodoro as administrator.
On November 19, 1981, the 4th floor of Manila City Hall was burned and among the
records burned were the records of the Court where Sandejas filed his petition.
On April 19, 1983, an Omnibus Pleading for motion to intervene and petition-inintervention was filed by Alex A. Lina alleging that Sandejas, in his capacity as seller,
obligated to sell to Lina 4 parcels of land.
Eliodoro died sometime in November 1984 in Canada His counsel is still waiting for
official word on the fact of the death of the administrator. He also alleged that the matter
of the claim of Alex becomes a money claim to be filed in Eliodoro's estate. the lower
court issued an order directing the other heirs of Sandejas to move for the appointment
of a new administrator within 15 days from receipt of the order.
On January 1986, Alex filed a Motion for his appointment as a new administrator of the
Intestate Estate of Remedios R. Sandejas on the following reasons: that Alex has not
received any motion for the appointment of an administrator in place of Eliodoro; that his
appointment would be beneficial to the heirs; that he is willing to give away his being an
administrator as long as the heirs has found one. The heirs chose Sixto Sandejas as
new administrator. They were reasoning out that it was only at a later date that Sixto
accepted the appointment. The lower court substituted Alex Lina with Sixto Sandejas as
administrator.
On November 1993, Alex filed an Omnibus Motion to approve the deed of conditional
sale executed between Alex A. Lina and Elidioro and to compel the heirs to execute a
deed of absolute sale in favor of Alex. The lower court granted Alex's motion.
Overturning the RTC ruling, the CA held that the contract between Eliodoro Sandejas
Sr. and respondent was merely a contract to sell, not a perfected contract of sale. It
ruled that the ownership of the four lots was to remain in the intestate estate of
Remedios until the approval of the sale was obtained from the settlement court.
Issue
What is the settlement court's jurisdiction?
Held:
Court approval is required in any disposition of the decedent's estate per Rule 89 of the
Rules of Court. One can sell their rights, interests or participation in the property under
administration. A stipulation requiring court approval does not affect the validity and the
effectivity of the sale as regards the selling heirs. It merely implies that the property may
be taken out of custodia legis, but only with the court's permission.
Section 8 of Rule 89 allows this action to proceed. The factual differences have no
bearing on the intestate court's jurisdiction over the approval of the subject conditional
sale. Probate jurisdiction covers all matters relating to the settlement of estates (Rules
74 & 86-91) and the probate of wills (Rules 75-77) of deceased persons, including the
appointment and the removal of administrators and executors (Rules 78-85). It also

extends to matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of a probate court's


recognized powers such as selling, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering realty
belonging to the estate. Indeed, the rules on this point are intended to settle the estate
in a speedy manner, so that the benefits that may flow from such settlement may be
immediately enjoyed by the heirs and the beneficiaries.
In the present case, the Motion was meant to settle the decedent's obligation to Alex;
hence, that obligation clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the settlement court. To
require respondent to file a separate action -- on whether petitioners should convey the
title to Eliodoro Sr.'s share of the disputed realty -- will unnecessarily prolong the
settlement of the intestate estates of the deceased spouses.
* Re: Intervenor's Standing
Petitioners contend that under said Rule 89, only the executor or administrator is
authorized to apply for the approval of a sale of realty under administration. Hence, the
settlement court allegedly erred in entertaining and granting respondent's Motion for
Approval.
There is no such limitation. Section 8, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court, provides:
"SEC. 8. When court may authorize conveyance of realty which deceased contracted to
convey. Notice. Effect of deed. -- Where the deceased was in his lifetime under contract,
binding in law, to deed real property, or an interest therein, the court having jurisdiction
of the estate may, on application for that purpose, authorize the executor or
administrator to convey such property according to such contract, or with such
modifications as are agreed upon by the parties and approved by the court; and if the
contract is to convey real property to the executor or administrator, the clerk of the court
shall execute the deed. "
This provision should be differentiated from Sections 2 and 4 of the same Rule,
specifically requiring only the executor or administrator to file the application for
authority to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber real estate for the purpose of paying
debts, expenses and legacies (Section 2);or for authority to sell real or personal estate
beneficial to the heirs, devisees or legatees and other interested persons, although such
authority is not necessary to pay debts, legacies or expenses of administration (Section
4).
Section 8 mentions only an application to authorize the conveyance of realty under a
contract that the deceased entered into while still alive. While this Rule does not specify
who should file the application, it stands to reason that the proper party must be one
.who is to be benefited or injured by the judgment, or one who is to be entitled to the
avails of the suit.

You might also like