G.R. No. 32195 , August 19, 1930
PETRONILA FAJARDO, petitioner-appellee, vs. MELCHOR FAJARDO, opponent-appellant.

FACTS

Petronila Fajardo filed a petition for the judicial administration of the intestate estate of their deceased parents, spouses Magdaleno Fajardo and Candelaria Firmalino. Melchor Fajardo, her brother and the sole other heir, opposed the petition. He claimed that their father had already partitioned his estate between them during his lifetime, with each heir taking possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The Court of First Instance of Capiz granted the petition for administration and appointed Juana Firmalino as administratrix. Melchor Fajardo appealed, assigning errors that the lower court should have dismissed the proceedings and allowed him to present evidence on prescriptive possession and the equity of the alleged partition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in granting the petition for judicial administration and not dismissing the proceedings, despite the appellant’s claim of a prior partition of the estate by their father.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the order granting judicial administration. The appellant failed to prove that a valid partition of the estate had been made by their deceased father. A partition of an estate can only be made either by an act inter vivos (which requires a public instrument for real property under Article 1280 of the Civil Code) or by a will (which requires observance of testamentary formalities). The record showed no evidence that such formalities were complied with. The mere possession of some lands by the appellant before his father’s death, and by the appellee after, did not establish a lawful partition. Therefore, the estate remained unsettled and subject to judicial administration. The doctrines in cases like Fule v. Fule were inapplicable as the validity and formality of the partition itself were directly in issue here.