The court ruled that (1) grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from an estate, (2) titles to properties cannot be released to heirs until 6 months after publishing notice to creditors, and (3) an executor's right to possess estate properties is not absolute and is only necessary for paying debts and expenses.
The court ruled that (1) grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from an estate, (2) titles to properties cannot be released to heirs until 6 months after publishing notice to creditors, and (3) an executor's right to possess estate properties is not absolute and is only necessary for paying debts and expenses.
The court ruled that (1) grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from an estate, (2) titles to properties cannot be released to heirs until 6 months after publishing notice to creditors, and (3) an executor's right to possess estate properties is not absolute and is only necessary for paying debts and expenses.
The court ruled that (1) grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from an estate, (2) titles to properties cannot be released to heirs until 6 months after publishing notice to creditors, and (3) an executor's right to possess estate properties is not absolute and is only necessary for paying debts and expenses.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ vs.
COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 118671, January 29, 1996
FACTS:
Hilario M. Ruiz made a holographic will, naming his only son Edmond Ruiz, adopted daughter Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes, and three granddaughters, Maria Cathryn, Candice Albertine, and Maria Angeline, as his heirs.
When Hilario died , the cash component of the estate was distributed among the heirs. Petitioner did not take any action for the probate of the will. Four years after the death of Hilario, Maria Pilar file a petition for probate which the petitioner opposed contending that the will was made under undue influence.
Edmond Ruiz thereafter leased a property bequeathed to one of the private
respondent to third persons. The probate court then ordered petitioner to deposit the proceeds to the Clerk Of Court. Petitioner the moved for the release of certain amounts for the payment of real estate taxes which the court granted. Petitioner again moved for the release of funds but only "such amount as may be necessary to cover the expenses of administration and allowances for support" of the testator's three granddaughters subject to collation and deductible from their share in the inheritance.
The court, however, held in abeyance the release of the titles to respondent Montes and the three granddaughters until the lapse of six months from the date of first publication of the notice to creditors.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the probate court has the authority to grant an allowance from the funds of the estate for the support of the testator's grandchildren. 2. Whether the probate court should order the release of the titles to certain heirs. 3. Whether the probate court should grant possession of all properties of the estate to the executor of the will.
RULING:
1. No 2. No 3. No
HELD:
1. Grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of the decedent’s estate. It is settled that allowances for support under Section 3 of Rule 83 should not be limited to the "minor or incapacitated" children of the deceased. Article 188 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the substantive law in force at the time of the testator’s death, provides that during the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the deceased’s legitimate spouse and children, regardless of their age, civil status or gainful employment, are entitled to provisional support from the funds of the estate. The law is rooted on the fact that the right and duty to support, especially the right to education, subsist even beyond the age of majority.
Grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of the decedent’s estate. The law clearly limits the allowance to “widow and children” and does not extend it to the deceased’s grandchildren, regardless of their minority or incapacity.
It was error, therefore, for the appellate court to sustain the probate court’s order granting an allowance to the grandchildren of the testator pending settlement of his estate.
2. Respondent courts also erred when they ordered the release of the titles of the bequeathed properties to private respondents six months after the date of first publication of notice to creditors.
In settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution of the estate properties
can only be made: (1) after all the debts and obligations have been paid; or (2) only if the distributees or any of them gives a bond in a sum fixed by the court conditioned upon the payment of said obligations.
In the case at bar, the probate court ordered the release of the titles to the Valle Verde property and the Blue Ridge apartments to the private respondents after the lapse of six months from the date of first publication of the notice to creditors.
The questioned order speaks of "notice" to creditors, not payment of debts and obligations. Hilario Ruiz allegedly left no debts when he died but the taxes on his estate had not hitherto been paid, much less ascertained. The estate tax is one of those obligations that must be paid before distribution of the estate. If not yet paid, the rule requires that the distributees post a bond or make such provisions as to meet the said tax obligation in proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance. Notably, at the time the order was issued the properties of the estate had not yet been inventoried and appraised.
3. The right of an executor or administrator to the possession and management
of the real and personal properties of the deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised “so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses of administration.”
As executor, he is a mere trustee of his father’s estate. The funds of the estate in his hands are trust funds and he is held to the duties and responsibilities of a trustee of the highest order. He cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his parents’ properties and the fruits thereof without first submitting an inventory and appraisal of all real and personal properties of the deceased, rendering a true account of his administration, the expenses of administration, the amount of the obligations and estate tax, all of which are subject to a determination by the court as to their veracity, propriety and justness.
