16 Villamor v Court
G.R. No. 41508 June 27, 1988
Topic: Settlement of Decedents’ Estates
Doctrine: (presumed from the case as there was no mention of rules for appointment or removal
of administrator) In case the persons who have the preferential right to be appointed are not
competent or are unwilling to serve, administration may be granted to such other person as the
court may appoint.
Facts:
1. Spouses Victor and Maria Cortes had 8 children, namely Rufino, Barbara, Florencio,
Casimira, Brigida, Braulia, Margarita, and Eugenia. Of the children, six died single and
without issue.
a. Barbara begot a son (Eustaquio) while Rufino left two alleged legitimate
children (Ireneo and Paula Villamor).
b. Eustaquio married Sixta Ceniza who bore him five children (Dionisio,
Bartolome, Nicanor, Agapita, Amancia) of whom all remained unmarried
and died without a will nor forced heirs. Dionisio, Amancia and Agapita
predeceased their father. Eustaquio was survived by his spouses and two
sons Bartolome (a Catholic priest) and Nicanor (monk of the Carthusian
Order)1.
c. Paula Villamor died without any issue while Ireneo had five children
(Candelario, Bartolome, Sofronio, Eleuterio, Marcos) with his wife Bersabela
Perez.
2. After the death of Bartolome Cortes on Nov. 14, 1937, Special Proceeding no. 227
was instituted for the settlement of his estate wherein Fr. Camomot, a close friend of
his, was named administrator. Another Special Proceeding [262], relating to the
intestate estates of Eugenia, Casimira, Florencio, Braulia, Margarita and Barbara, was
filed whereby Atty. Sato was appointed administrator.
3. In 1938, Paula and Ireneo, claiming to be legitimate children of Rufino, filed a petition
for the administration of the estate of Rufino to counteract the effects of the second
special proceeding.
4. The heirs of Barbara Cortes, represented by Sixta and Fr. Camomot, and the Rufino
Cortes line scrambled over the control and possession of the properties. They finally
filed a joint motion manifesting that they had agreed at a settlement by partitioning the
estate among them.
5. After 6 months, a project of partition was executed whereby 7 parcels of land was
apportioned and delivered to Ireneo and Paula. This was approved.
6. Upon the death of Sixta Ceniza in 1948, Cristina Ceniza (sister of respondent Daniela
Urot) instituted a Special Proceeding for the administration of the estate of Sixta
whereby Escolastico was appointed administrator. Said appointment was revoked so
another person (Perez) was appointed administrator.
a. They wanted to be declared the sole and only forced heirs of Sixta even
though Fr. Nicanor was still alive.
b. In 1954, Fr. Cortes executed a SPA appointing Fr. Camomot as his attorney
in fact and giving him the power to appear on his behalf in the SP
proceeding filed in #6.
1
Nicanor Cortes was the last of the direct descendants of the Barbara Cortes line.
c. TC declared Fr. Nicanor Cortes as the only and universal heir of Sixta.
7. In 1960, Ireneo and Paula sold the parcel of land (Parcel 5) to Claudia Labos and
Gregoria Suico. Ireneo then obtained a free patent title over parcels 1,2,4,6,7 in 1996
but parcel 3 remained unregistered.
8. After Ireneo died, his children [petitioners] executed an extra-judicial partition,
dividing the remaining 6 parcels of land among themselves.
9. Fr. Nicanor executed a Deed of Conveyance in favor of several persons, conveying 10
parcels of land which included those received by Sixta under the Project of Partition.
After his death, SP proceeding for the settlement of his estate was filed.
10. The administratix Daniela Urot filed a civil case against petitioners for recovery
received in the Project of Partition, alleging that the decedent’s surviving first cousins
came upon documents showing that he was deprived of his inheritance by fraud
perpetrated by Paula and Ireneo when they instituted a SP proceeding [check fact #3]
falsely representing that they were the legitimate children of Rufino; that Rufino
remained unmarried; that he had no property nor inherited any from Casimira and
Eugenia; that Ireneo and Paula prepared a project of partition and adjudicated to
themselves the 7 parcels of land, without notice to Fr. Nicanor’s representative.
11. Petitioners filed a MTD alleging that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment
and statute of limitations.
12. TC  denied MTD and MR; petitioners went to SC via certiorari but denied for
prematurity
13. Petitioners filed their answer, alleging that Fr. Nicanor had personal knowledge of the
SP proceedings; that declaration of heirship had already been resolved; the court has
no jurisdiction over the nature of the action.
14. TC  Ireneo and Paula made misrepresentations in SP proceedings, took
helplessness of Sixta when they had Project of Partition thumbmarked by her; when
the probate court approved the project of partition, there was no hearing for the
purpose of determining the parties lawfully entitled to the estate nor was there an
opportunity given to Fr. Nicanor Cortes to intervene or oppose = collusion
15. CA  affirmed TC decision
Issue 1: W/N Nicanor had personal knowledge of Project of Partition and SP Proceeding?
Held: YES.
1. Fr. Nicanor had personal knowledge of the SP proceedings based on Fr. Camomot’s
testimony that he had sent the former a copy of the project of partition, and based on
the former’s letters identifying with certainty who had the right to exercise disposition
over the lands. Absent any showing that Ireneo and Paula were designated as
administrators of his properties, the only conclusion is that Fr. Nicanor knew the
circumstances under which they acquired ownership and possession. Based further
on the Deed of Conveyance he executed, it can be gleaned that he was kept posted
on the developments in the PH and even intervened in the proceedings for the
settlement of the estate of his mother Sixta.
2. The loss and/or destruction of the pre-war records in Special Proceedings No. 262-C
renders the determination of whether or not Fr. Nicanor Cortes was duly notified
thereof an impossibility. However, the probability of his having been notified cannot be
totally discounted. On the other hand, no personal notice was due Fr. Nicanor Cortes
in Special Proceedings No. 343-C [SP proceeding in #3], not being the presumptive
heir of Rufino Cortes.
3. Thus, if it were true that Fr. Nicanor Cortes had no notice of Special Proceedings Nos.
262 and 343, the failure to give such notice must be attributed to whoever instituted
Special Proceedings No. 262 wherein Fr. Cortes was a presumptive heir, and not to
 Ireneo and Paula Villamor, the petitioners in Special Proceedings No. 343, wherein Fr.
Cortes was not a presumptive heir and where the publication of the petition as
required by law was sufficient to give notice to the whole world including Fr. Cortes.
4. Furthermore, the LC had portrated Sixta as an old woman who became easy target for
fraud (due to blindness and old age), but this is untenable as she was able to validly
donate lands to those who served her by means of documents in 1947.

Issue 2: W/N appointing administrators who are complete strangers to the decedents is an
indicium of collusion as found by the courts? NO
5. Section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates the persons who can act as
executors and administrators. It provides that in case the persons who have the
preferential right to be appointed are not competent or are unwilling to serve,
administration may be granted to such other person as the court may appoint.
6. Although Fr. Nicanor had a number of surviving first cousins, he chose Fr. Camomot
to take charge of his and Sixta’s affairs. He even took steps to have the appointment
of Escolastico Ceniza revoked.
7. Assuming that extrinsic fraud had been committed by Ireneo and Paula in alleged
collusion with Administrator Mendoza, Fr. Camomot and their lawyer, n action for
reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud may be barred by the statute of
limitations, which requires that the action shall be filed within 4 years from the
discovery of fraud. The period of prescription commenced to run from August 18, 1955
(when Nicanor was declared as universal heir of Sixta). However, from said date up to
his death on August 28, 1969, Fr. Nicanor Cortes remained silent and failed to assert
his right. He even conveyed at least three lands which were among those apportioned
to Sixta Ceniza in the Project of Partition to several persons.
8. Her predecessor-in-interest, Fr. Nicanor Cortes, not having filed any action for
reconveyance within the prescriptive period provided by law, neither could private
respondent do so now, for her right cannot rise higher than its source.

Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE the petition is hereby GRANTED.