Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    2010 - 2015 - DST

    Uploaded by

    Jei Essa Almias
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada Jr. who died without a will. The petitioners executed an extrajudicial settlement involving the properties of the estate and obtained a loan using the properties as collateral. The respondents, who are the deceased's heirs, filed a petition for letters of administration and sought to annul the extrajudicial settlement. The Court ruled that the heirs have legal standing to represent the estate's rights and properties in court pending the appointment of an administrator, in accordance with Civil Code provisions stating inheritance rights are transmitted at death.

    Copyright:

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

    2010 - 2015 - DST

    Uploaded by

    Jei Essa Almias
    25 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada Jr. who died without a will. The petitioners executed an extrajudicial settlement involving the properties of the estate and obtained a loan using the properties as collateral. The respondents, who are the deceased's heirs, filed a petition for letters of administration and sought to annul the extrajudicial settlement. The Court ruled that the heirs have legal standing to represent the estate's rights and properties in court pending the appointment of an administrator, in accordance with Civil Code provisions stating inheritance rights are transmitted at death.

    Original Description:

    digest

    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 involves a dispute over the estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada Jr. who died without a will. The petitioners executed an extrajudicial settlement involving the properties of the estate and obtained a loan using the properties as collateral. The respondents, who are the deceased's heirs, filed a petition for letters of administration and sought to annul the extrajudicial settlement. The Court ruled that the heirs have legal standing to represent the estate's rights and properties in court pending the appointment of an administrator, in accordance with Civil Code provisions stating inheritance rights are transmitted at death.

    Copyright:

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

    2010 - 2015 - DST

    Uploaded by

    Jei Essa Almias
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada Jr. who died without a will. The petitioners executed an extrajudicial settlement involving the properties of the estate and obtained a loan using the properties as collateral. The respondents, who are the deceased's heirs, filed a petition for letters of administration and sought to annul the extrajudicial settlement. The Court ruled that the heirs have legal standing to represent the estate's rights and properties in court pending the appointment of an administrator, in accordance with Civil Code provisions stating inheritance rights are transmitted at death.

    Copyright:

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

    RIOFERO VS.

    CA
    G.R. No. 129008 - January 13, 2004
    Petitioners: Teodora A. Rioferio, Veronica O. Evangelista Assisted By Her Husband
    Zaldy Evangelista, Alberto Orfinada, And Rowena O. Ungos, Assisted By Her
    Husband Beda Ungos
    Respondents: Court Of Appeals, Esperanza P. Orfinada, Lourdes P. Orfinada, Alfonso
    Orfinada, Nancy P. Orfinada, Alfonso James P. Orfinada, Christopher P. Orfinada And
    Angelo P. Orfinada
    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 court’s 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