G.R. No. 18034; September 2, 1922
SINFORO BUENAVENTURA, as administrator of the estate of Juan Buenaventura, deceased and TIMOTEO DEL ROSARIO, petitioners-appellees, vs. TOMAS B. RAMOS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Sinforo Buenaventura, as administrator of the estate of Juan Buenaventura, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for authority to sell a fishery belonging to the estate. The petition alleged the fishery was in bad condition, the estate lacked funds for repairs, the heirs were poor and numerous, and the sale was necessary to partition the estate. The heirs opposed the sale. The court initially denied the petition, citing the pending inventory, a lawsuit against the fishery’s tenant (which could provide funds), and the lack of a fixed value. The administrator renewed the petition, and despite continued opposition from all heirs, the court authorized the sale to the highest bidder, Timoteo del Rosario, subject to court confirmation. The heirs opposed the confirmation, but the court approved the sale. The heirs appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in authorizing the sale of the fishery property of the estate over the opposition of all the heirs, in the absence of any unpaid debts of the estate.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order authorizing and confirming the sale. Under Sections 714 to 722 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), the authority of a probate court to order the sale of estate property is primarily for the purpose of paying debts and obligations of the estate that existed at the time of the decedent’s death. The petition for sale did not allege any such unpaid debts. The reasons given (bad condition, lack of repair funds, poverty of heirs, convenience of partition) pertained to the management and control of the property after the heirs had become its absolute owners. In the absence of debts against the estate, the heirs, as absolute owners, have the sole right to decide on the management, repair, or disposition of the property. The administrator has no authority to sell the property for reasons of mere convenience or partition against the unanimous opposition of the heirs. The appealed judgment was revoked and the defendants (heirs) were absolved from liability under the complaint.