3/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CFI of Rizal, Br. IX vs. Court of Appeals
*
No. L51785. July 25, 1981.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF

RIZAL, BRANCH IX, QUEZON CITY, and ELENA ONG
ESCUTIN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS and FELIX ONG, respondents. GAN HENG,
intervenor.

Remedial Law; Estate Proceedings; Intervention, requirement

for; Interested parties; Sale of property of estate, nature of; Person
who offered to buy property of estate even if for a higher price is
without legal personality to impugn validity of sale already made
to another although at a lower price, for not being an interested
party in the estate; Interested party in estate of decedent, meaning
of.Whether or not Felix Ong had offered P450,000.00 for the
property is of little importance. It appears that the sale sought to
be annulled is a private sale duly authorized by the probate court
and not a public auction sale, although the executrix had offered
the property to different persons, so that Felix Ong, who merely
offered to buy the property, has no legal personality to impugn the
validity of the said sale. It is wellsettled that for a person to be
able to intervene in an administration proceeding concerning the
estate of a deceased person, it is necessary for him to have an
interest in such estate. An interested party in the estate of a
decedent has been defined as one who would be benefitted by the
estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate,
such as a creditor. Felix Ong does not claim to be a creditor of the
estate of Ponciano Ong Lacson. Neither is he an heir of the
decedent. Consequently, he has no right to intervene either in the
proceedings brought in connection with the estate or in the
settlement of the succession.
Same; Same; Probate court's ample discretion in determining
whether conditions of a particular sale would be beneficial to the
estate, generally respected by appellate courts; Difference in prices
not a sole factor in approval of sale by the probate court.At any
rate, in a special proceeding for administration of an estate, the
probate court enjoys ample discretion in determining under what

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ae0e530b7ce910081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
3/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

conditions a particular sale would be most beneficial to all persons

interested, and appellate courts are wont not to interfere with or
attempt to replace the action taken by it unless it be shown that
there

________________

* SECOND DIVISION

115

VOL. 106, JULY 25, 1981 115

CFI of Rizal, Br. IX vs. Court of Appeals

has been positive abuse of discretion. In the instant case, the offer
of Felix Ong to buy the property at a higher price would not make
the approval of the sale a grave abuse of discretion because the
difference in the prices was not the only factor taken into
consideration by the probate court in approving the sale.
Same; Same; Bond; Noncompliance of requirements for
posting of a bond to prevent sale of property; Case at bar.
Moreover, Felix Ong did not comply with the provisions of
Section 3, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court by submitting a bond in
order to prevent the sale of the property.
Same; Same; Equity; Setting aside sale after the executrix had
accepted benefits from the sale and the vendee purchased the
property in good faith is inequitous; Subsequent increase in value
of property not justification for rejecting a conveyance made by the
estate's administrator.It would be highly iniquitous to set aside
the sale after the executrix had accepted benefits therefrom.
Besides, it has already been held that the subsequent increase in
the value of the property is not sufficient reason for turning down
a conveyance made by an administrator of an estate.

PETITION to review on certiorari of the resolution of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CONCEPCION, JR., J.:

Review on certiorari of the resolution of the Court of

Appeals promulgated on June 21, 1979 in CAG.R. No.
08472SP, entitled: "Felix Ong, petitioner, versus Hon.
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IX, Quezon City
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ae0e530b7ce910081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
3/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

and Elena Ong Escutin, respondents", which set aside the

order of the pro bate court in Spec. Proc. No. Q14700,
"Testate Estate of the late Ponciano Ong Lacson; Elena
Ong Escutin, executrix", confirming the sale of property
belonging to the estate in favor of the intervenor Gan
Heng.
The record shows that on October 20, 1977, Elena Ong
Escutin, executrix of the Testate Estate of the Late
Ponciano Ong Lacson, asked the probate court in' Spec.
Proc. No. Q14700 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Branch IX,

116

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CFI of Rizal, Br. IX vs. Court of Appeals

Quezon City, for authority to sell property of the estate in

order to pay the taxes and other claims against the estate.
After a cursory inquiry on the current market value of
properties within the vicinity where the property to be sold
is located, the probate court, in an order dated February 3,
1978, authorized the executrix to sell the property for not
less than P360,000.00
On February 28, 1978, the executrix sold the property to
the herein intervenor, Gan Heng, for P400,000.00, and
from this amount she paid the taxes amounting to
P54,480.28. On March 16, 1978, she submitted the Deed of
Sale to the probate court for approval and the hearing
thereof was set for April 17, 1978.
On April 11, 1978, however, Felix Ong filed an
opposition to the approval of the sale, alleging, among
others, that he (Felix Ong) had offered to buy the property
at a higher price of P450,000.00, which claim was denied by
the executrix. In view thereof, the probate court set for
hearing the only issue of whether or not Felix Ong had
made an offer to purchase the property for P450,000.00
before the sale was made in favor of Gan Heng.
After hearing, or on August 10, 1978, the probate court
found that Felix Ong had not made an offer to buy the
property prior to 1its sale to Gan Heng, and approved the
sale to Gan Heng.
Whereupon, Felix Ong filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals, docketed therein as CAG.R. No.
08472SP, to annul and set aside the order of the probate
court approving the sale, and to direct the probate court
and the executrix to accept his offer to buy the property for
P450,000.00. After prior proceedings, the Court of Appeals
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ae0e530b7ce910081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
3/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

rendered a decision2 on April 6, 1979, dismissing the

petition of Felix Ong.
However, on June 21, 1979, the Court of Appeals, acting
upon the motion for reconsideration filed by Felix Ong,
found that the probate court gravely abused its discretion
in approving the sale to Gan Heng since there was an offer
from Felix Ong to buy the property at a higher price at the
hearing of the

_______________

1 Rollo, p. 51.
2 Id, p. 58.

117

VOL. 106, JULY 25, 1981 117

CFI of Rizal, Br. IX vs. Court of Appeals

motion for the approval of the sale to Gan Heng and,

consequently, reversed its 3
previous decision and granted
the petition of Felix Ong.
Hence, the present recourse.
The petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred
in setting aside the order of the probate court approving
the sale of the property to Gan Heng; and in ordering them
(petitioners) to accept the offer of Felix Ong to buy the
property f or P450,000.00.
There is merit in the contention. Whether or not Felix
Ong had offered P450,000.00 for the property is of little
importance. It appears that the sale sought to be annulled
is a private sale duly authorized by the probate court and
not a public auction sale, although the executrix had
offered the property to different persons, so that Felix Ong,
who merely offered to buy the property, has no legal
personality to impugn the validity of their said sale. It is
wellsettled that for a person to be able to intervene in an
administration proceeding concerning the estate of a
deceased person, it is necessary for him to have an interest
in such estate. An interested party in the estate of a
decedent has been defined as one who would be benefitted
by the estate, such as an heir, or one 4
who has a claim
against the estate, such as a creditor, Felix Ong does not
claim to be a creditor of the estate of Ponciano Ong Lacson.
Neither is he an heir of the decedent. Consequently, he has
no right to intervene either in the proceedings brought in
connection 5 with the estate or in the settlement of the
succession.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ae0e530b7ce910081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
3/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

At any rate, in a special proceeding for administration of

an estate, the probate court enjoys ample discretion in
determining under what conditions a particular sale would
be most beneficial to all persons interested, and appellate
courts are wont not to interfere with or attempt to replace
the action taken by it unless it 6be shown that there has
been positive abuse of discretion. In the instant case, the
offer of Felix Ong

________________

3 Id., p. 67.
4 Saguinsin vs. Lindayag, 116 Phil. 1193:
5 Litonjua vs. Montilla, 90 Phil. 757.
6 Fernandez vs. Montejo, 109 Phil. 701.

118

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CFI of Rizal, Br. IX vs. Court of Appeals

to buy the property at a higher price would not make the

approval of the sale a grave abuse of discretion because the
difference in the prices was not the only factor taken into
consideration by the probate court in approving the sale. As
the probate court said: "The price was not at all bad and
although Felix Ong and/or Manuel Ong are willing to pay
P50,000.00 more which would benefit the state, we are not
inclined to disapprove the sale on that account alone; as
otherwise, this could put the executrix in a very
embarassing position. After all, the Deed of Sale as
executed is in accordance with our order."
Besides, the creditors of the estate and the heirs of the
late Ponciano Ong Lacson, including Ponciano Ong Lacson,
Jr., who manifested, through counsel, that he7 has no
objection to selling the property to Felix Ong, did not
actively oppose the sale of the property to Gan Heng, such
that there is no indication that the sale to the said Gan
Heng was not beneficial to the estate.
Moreover, Felix Ong did not comply with the provisions
of Section 3, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court by submitting a
bond in order to prevent the sale of the property. Said
section reads, as follows:

"Sec. 3. Persons interested may prevent such sale, etc., by giving

bond.No such authority to sell, mortgage, or otherwise
encumber real or personal estate shall be granted if any person
interested in the estate gives a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ae0e530b7ce910081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
3/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

court, conditioned to pay the debts, expenses of administration,

and legacies within such time as the court directs; and such bond
shall be for the security of the creditors, as well as of the executor
or administrator, and may be prosecuted for the benefit of either."

It results that the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside

the order of the probate court approving the sale of the
property to Gan Heng; and in ordering the executrix to
accept the bid of Felix Ong to buy the property.
With respect to the prayer of the executrix that she be
allowed to withdraw her Motion to Approve Sale and
Motion to Sell,

________________

7 Rollo, p. 132.

119

VOL. 106, JULY 25, 1981 119

CFI of Rizal, Br. IX vs. Court of Appeals

which she filed with the probate court, on the ground that
the said sale is detrimental to the estate because the
property is now worth P1,000.00, it is important to bear in
mind that the sale was actually made and the vendee,
intervenor herein, made the purchase in good faith. He had
already paid the purchase price to the executrix who used
part of it "to pay the estate and inheritance taxes due from
the estate of the late Ponciano Ong Lacson, Sr., and his late
wife Eugenia Ocampo Lacson as well as in the necessary
repairs made to preserve the family residence and 8
the 4
door apartment building belonging to the estate." It would
be highly iniquitous to set aside the sale after the executrix
had accepted benefits therefrom. Besides, it has already
been held that the subsequent increase in the value of the
property is not sufficient reason for turning 9down a
conveyance made by an administrator of an estate.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby
reversed, and another one entered affirming the order of
the probate court issued in Spec. Proc. No. Q14700 of the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IX, Quezon City,
entitled: "Testate Estate of the Late Ponciano Ong Lacson,
Sr., Dra. Elena Ong Escutin, executrix," on August 10,
1978. With costs against Felix Ong.
SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Guerrero * and De

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ae0e530b7ce910081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False Castro, JJ., 6/8
3/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106
*
Barredo (Chairman), Guerrero and De Castro, JJ.,
concur.
Aquino, J,, in the result.

Judgment reversed.

Notes.The approval of final accounts by the court does

not divest it of jurisdiction to require supplemental
accounting. (Tumang vs. Laguio, 96 SCRA 124).

________________

8 Id, p. 127.
9 Cruz vs. Ilagan, 81 Phil. 554.
* Mr. Justice Juvenal K. Guerrero, a member of the First Division, was
designated to sit in the Second Division in lieu of Mr. Justice Vicente
Abad Santos who took no part.

120

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CFI of Rizal, Br. IX vs. Court of Appeals

The duty of an executor or administrator to render an

account is not a mere incident of an administration
proceeding which can be waived or disregarded. It is a duty
that has to be performed and duly acted upon by the court
before the administration is finally ordered close and
terminated, to the end that no part of the decedent's estate
be left unaccounted for. (Tumang vs. Laguio, 96 SCRA 124)
The reason for the practice of appointing a special
administrator rests in the fact that estates of decedents
frequently become involved in protected litigation thereby
being exposed to great waste and losses if there is no
authorized agent to collect the debts and preserve the
assets in the interim. The occasion for such an
appointment usually arises where, for some cause, such as
pendency of a suit concerning the proof of the will, regular
administration is delayed. (De Guzman vs. Gandiz, Jr., 96
SCRA 938).
Interest and surcharges are due against the decedent's
estate for late payment of estate tax. (Vera vs. Navarro, 79
SCRA 408).
A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such
that with the publication of the petition the court's
jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or
in the settlement of the estate of the deceased. (Abut vs.
Abut, 45 SCRA 326).

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ae0e530b7ce910081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
3/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 106

Opposition to jurisdiction of trial court in settlement

proceedings should be by appeal. (Cuenco vs. Court of
Appeals, 53 SCRA 360).
Determination by probate court on questions regarding
title to property for purposes of inclusion or exclusion in the
inventory is not conclusive. (Vda. de Valera vs. Ofilada, 59
SCRA 96).
A probate court is a court with special and limited
jurisdiction and cannot, as a general rule, issue a writ of
execution. (Vda. de Valera vs. Ofilada, 59 SCRA 96).
The appointment of an ancillary administrator is
committed to the wisdom of the trial court. (Macias vs.
Cruz, 49 SCRA 80).
A compromise agreement entered into by the heirs is
binding upon them even without the previous authority of
the

121

VOL. 106, JULY 25, 1981 121

Ortigas & Co., Ltd. Partnership vs. Court of Appeals

court to enter into such agreement. (De Borja vs. Vda. de

Borja, 46 SCRA 577).

o0o

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ae0e530b7ce910081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8