G.R. No. L-21725 November 29, 1968
AURELIO ARCILLAS, petitioner, vs. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, MODESTA ALFARO, GERONIMO ARCILLAS and VICENTE ARCILLAS, respondents.

FACTS

Two separate petitions were filed before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga concerning Lot No. 276, which formed a major part of the estate of the late Eustaquio Arcillas. The first petition, dated November 12, 1962, was filed by Geronimo Arcillas, an heir, seeking the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-244 in the name of the deceased and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the names of the heirs pursuant to Section 112 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act). The second petition, dated November 16, 1962, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 632, was filed by five other children of the deceased, including petitioner Aurelio Arcillas, praying for the issuance of letters of administration in favor of Aurelio Arcillas for the settlement of the estate. Aurelio Arcillas opposed the November 12 petition, arguing it should be held in abeyance pending the administration proceedings. The respondent Judge initially agreed and issued an order on December 1, 1962, holding the November 12 petition in abeyance. However, in the administration case, respondents Geronimo Arcillas, Vicente Arcillas, and Modesta Alfaro opposed the petition, arguing that since the deceased left only one property (Lot No. 276) and no debts, administration was improper. On March 8, 1963, the respondent court denied the petition for letters of administration and gave due course to the November 12 “cadastral motion,” citing Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court to avoid unnecessary expense and delay. Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari with mandamus and preliminary injunction.

ISSUE

1. Whether the respondent Judge acted properly in dismissing the administration proceedings under Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court upon averments that the estate left no debts and all heirs are of age.
2. Whether the respondent Judge acted properly in maintaining that the “cadastral motion” under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act was the more proper proceeding.

RULING

1. No. The Supreme Court held that Section 1, Rule 74 is not mandatory but permissive, as indicated by the use of the word “may.” It does not preclude the heirs from instituting administration proceedings even if the estate has no debts, if they have good reasons not to resort to an extrajudicial settlement or an ordinary action for partition. The heirs’ discretion to choose administration proceedings should be respected, and the resultant delay and expenses are voluntarily assumed by them. Furthermore, administration proceedings are more adequate for ascertaining the truth of petitioner’s claim regarding the existence of other properties of the deceased.
2. No. The Supreme Court held that the relief under Section 112 of Act No. 496 can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties or no adverse claim. In this case, the lack of unanimity, demonstrated by petitioner’s objection, removes the petition from the scope of Section 112. The proceedings under the Land Registration Act are summary and inadequate for litigating controversial issues, which should be threshed out in an ordinary action or in the case where the incident properly belongs.
The appealed orders were set aside. The respondent Judge was directed to reinstate Special Proceedings No. 632. The writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the hearing of the “cadastral motion” was made permanent. Costs were awarded against the private respondents.