G.R. No. L-42092; October 28, 1936
In re Estate of the deceased Andres Reyes. FELISA CAMIA DE REYES, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUANA REYES DE ILANO, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Andres Reyes died, survived by his second wife and executrix Felisa Camia de Reyes (appellant), their minor son Bibiano Reyes, and his daughter from his first marriage, Juana Reyes de Ilano (appellee). The estate included properties acquired during his first marriage to Luciana Farlin (who predeceased him) and during his second marriage. The court-appointed commissioners submitted a report on claims and appraisal. Felisa, as executrix, presented a project of partition for the estate. Juana opposed it, contending the valuation was inadequate, the project omitted some properties, included properties from the first conjugal partnership, and that some will provisions were inofficious. Juana submitted a counterproject of partition, which the trial court approved. Felisa appealed, assigning eleven errors, including the trial court’s acceptance of testimony to impugn the commissioners’ appraisal and its approval of Juana’s counterproject.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appellee could still impugn the commissioners’ appraisal of estate properties after the court declared their report “final and conclusive.”
2. Whether the trial court erred in approving the appellee’s counterproject of partition instead of the executrix’s project.

RULING

1. On impugning the appraisal: The trial court’s order declaring the commissioners’ report “final and conclusive” referred only to its resolution on certain disallowed claims from specific creditors who did not appeal. It did not preclude heirs from contesting the appraisal or valuation of estate properties for purposes of partition. Thus, the appellee was entitled to present evidence, like the testimony of Benedicto A. Ilano, to challenge the property valuations in the partition proceedings.
2. On approving the counterproject: The law does not obligate the executor to present a project of partition; it is a facilitative measure. The court has the discretionary power to assign the estate residue to entitled persons. Interested parties may oppose the executor’s project and submit their own counterproject. The trial court acted within its discretion in approving the appellee’s counterproject. The appealed resolution was affirmed with the modification that the estate reimburse the executrix certain sums for expenses and commission.

AI Generated by Armztrong.