98. Alonzo v. IAC, 150 SCRA 517 99. Bautista v.

Grino-Aquino, 166 SCRA 760

FACTS: FACTS:
Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a The land in question is owned by Manuel Bautista and he
parcel of land registered in the name of their deceased parents. inherited it from his father, Mariano Bautista. A Deed of
Celestino Padua sold his undivided share to Carlos and Casimira Extrajudicial Partition was executed. Private respondents were
Alonzo by way of absolute sale. Eustaquia Padua also sold her signatories to the deed, and the signature of petitioner Manuel
own share to the same vendees. The Alonzos occupied an area Bautista was supposed to appear in that document, although
corresponding to two-fifths of the said lot, representing the petitioner Manuel Bautista denied having signed that Extrajudicial
portions sold to them. The vendees subsequently enclosed the Partition. Manuel Bautista married his second wife Emiliana
same with a fence. Tamayo and had only a child, Evangeline Bautista. When Juliana
Nojadera died, first wife of Manuel, the heirs of the late Juliana
ISSUE: executed an extrajudicial partition of the properties of their
WON the written notice is necessary in this case parents.

RULING: ISSUE:
The written notice is not necessary. Written notice seeks to WON the property of the surviving husband be the subject of an
ensure that the redemptioner is properly notified of the sale and extrajudicial partition of the estate of the deceased wife 
to indicate the date of such notice as the starting time of the 30-
day period of redemption. Considering the shortness of the RULING:
period, it is really necessary, as a general rule, to pinpoint the An extrajudicial settlement of the Estate applies only to the
precise date it is supposed to begin, to obviate any problem of estate left by the decedent who died without a will, and with no
alleged delays, sometimes consisting of only a day or two. Here, creditors, and the heirs are all of age or the minors are
there is no problem because the right of redemption was invoked represented by their judicial or legal representatives. If the
not days but years after the sales were made in 1963 and 1964. property does not belong to the estate of the decedent certainly it
cannot be the subject matter of an extrajudicial partition. As the
subject property does not belong to the estate of Juliana
Nojadera, the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, is void ab initio
being contrary to law.
101. Guilas v. Judge, L-026695, 31 Jan. 1972 103. Augustines v. CFI, 45 O.G. Supp. #9, p. 184, April 3,
FACTS: 1948
Jacinta executed a will instituting her husband Alejandro as her FACTS:
sole heir. The couple adopted herein petitioner Juanita. Jacinta Generosa Agustines died leaving a will which was subsequently
died and her will was admitted to probate. A project of partition submitted for probate. Having no children, she named her
was executed by both Alejandro and Juanita, wherein Juanita was husband Sever Valenzuela the universal heir, but she specified
given two lots. The probate court approved the project and some conditions. Josefa (sister) and the nephews and nieces of
ordered closed and terminated the present case. In the testate the Generosa executed an extrajudicial partition with Sever.
proceeding, Juanita then filed a petition praying that the two lots However, Severo failed to transmit the lot to the parish church of
be adjudicated to her. Alejandro contends that the he cannot be Polo or to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. In a motion,
directed to do so because the case was already terminated.  he represented that under the will he had discretion to determine
the area of land to be conveyed to the Polo church and that he
ISSUE: elected to assign that tract actually cultivated which is one
Whether the probate proceeding still continues  hectare more or less.

RULING: ISSUE:
The probate proceeding still continues. Whether or not the share of the church of Polo under the will and
The order of the probate court closing and terminating the the extrajudicial partition is not exceeding nine hectares.
probate case did not legally terminate the testate proceedings,
for her share under the project of partition has not been delivered RULING:
to her. The finality of the approval of the project of partition by The will of Generosa Agustines contained a provision to donate a
itself alone does not terminate the probate proceeding. As long as portion of her Quiririt farm not exceeding nine hectares to the
the order of the distribution of the estate has not been complied Polo church. The extrajudicial partition definitely alloted a nine-
with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and hectare parcel to the Polo church. Supposing, that under the will
terminated. Valenzuela's discretion included the determination of the area to
be transferred - and not merely the selection of the site where
the nine-hectare portion is to be segregated - still it seems clear
that in the partition he elected or agreed that a nine-hectare
portion shall be conveyed to the Polo church for masses.
104. In Re: Intestate Estate of Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay, 105. Manungas v. Loreto, G.R. No. 193161, August 22,
Emilio Suntay, III v. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 2011
183053, June 16, 2010 FACTS:
FACTS: Engracia Manugas was the wife of Florentino Manugas and they
Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay married to Dr. Federico Suntay, died had no children so they adopted Samuel David Avila. Florentino
intestate. Their only son, Emilio Aguinaldo Suntay predeceased died intestate while Avila predeceased his adoptive mother. Avila
both Cristina and Federico. At the time of her death, Cristina was was survived by his wife Sarah Abarte Vda. De Manugas.
survived by her husband, Federico, and several grandchildren, Engracia filed a Motion for Partition of Estate in the intestate
including herein petitioner Emilio A.M. Suntay III (Emilio III) and estate proceedings of Florentino. Through Parreño, Engracia
respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay. After the death of Emilio I, instituted a civil case against the Spouses Diosdado Salinas
Federico filed a Manifestation nominating his adopted son, Emilio Manugas and Milagros Pacifico for illegal detainer and damages.
IlI, as administrator of the decedents estate on his behalf, in the Diosdado instituted a petition for the issuance of letters of
event he would be adjudged as the one with a better right to the administration over Engracia’s Estate in his favor before the RTC
letters of administration. In the course of the proceedings, of Tagum. He alleged that he, being an illegitimate son of
Federico died. Florentino, is an heir of Engracia.

ISSUE: ISSUE:
What is the basis for the rules on intestate succession W/N the annulment to the appointment of Diosdado as judicial
administrator is valid.
RULING:
The law of intestacy is founded on the presumed will of the RULING:
deceased. Love, it is said, first descends, then ascends, and, The fact that Diosdado is an heir to the estate of Florentino
finally, spreads sideways. Thus, the law first calls the Manungas does not mean that he is entitled or even qualified to
descendants, then the ascendants, and finally the collaterals, become the special administrator of the Estate of Engracia.
always preferring those closer in degree to those of remoter Appointment of a special administrator lies within the discretion
degrees, on the assumption that the deceased would have done of the court. As the law does not say who shall be appointed as
so had he manifested his last will. Lastly, in default of anyone special administrator and the qualifications the appointee must
called to succession or bound to the decedent by ties of blood or have, the judge or court has discretion in the selection of the
affection, it is in accordance with his presumed will that his person to be appointed, discretion which must be sound, that is,
property be given to charitable or educational institutions, and not whimsical or contrary to reason, justice or equity.
thus contribute to the welfare of humanity.