G.R. No. L-13666; October 31, 1960
Fortunato Layague and Santiago Rombo, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Concepcion Perez de Ulgasan, in her capacity as Administratrix of the Intestate of Alipia Perez, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On July 29, 1949, plaintiffs Fortunato Layague and Santiago Rombo filed an action for declaratory relief against the administratrix of the estate of Alipia Perez. They sought a declaration that certain deeds of sale (Annexes “A”, “C”, and “E”) executed in 1946 by the heirs of Alipia Perez, conveying portions of real property under administration to them, were legal and valid. The complaint alleged the heirs had extrajudicially partitioned the estate and taken possession of their respective shares prior to the sales. The defendant administratrix, in her answer, claimed the extrajudicial partition and sales were null and void, and she filed a counterclaim seeking payment from the plaintiffs for the value of coconut fruits they gathered from the lands during the 1947-1948 crop years. The plaintiffs were declared in default for failing to answer the counterclaim. The main case did not go to trial because the parties entered into a stipulation of facts on October 2, 1956. Based on this stipulation, the lower court rendered judgment on October 17, 1956, declaring the deeds of sale valid and effective. The defendant appealed, contending the trial court erred in not rendering judgment on her counterclaim for the value of the coconuts gathered by the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved a pure question of law based on the stipulation.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in not rendering judgment on the defendant-appellant’s counterclaim for the value of the fruits (coconuts) gathered by the plaintiffs-appellees from the land under administration during the crop year 1947-1948.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The validity of the sales made by the heirs was no longer contested. The Court ruled that under Section 3, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court, an administrator’s right to possess estate property is necessary for the payment of debts and administration expenses. Where there are no debts to be paid, there is no reason for the administrator to take possession, and the estate should pass to the heirs. Since the sales by the heirs were declared valid and there was no intimation the estate was indebted, payment for the fruits gathered by the plaintiffs (as purchasers) to the administratrix was not warranted and could be cumbersome. The Court noted that the estate had been under administration for an unreasonably long time since 1936, contrary to the policy of the Rules to close estates promptly. The intestate court retains jurisdiction over the proceeds from the fruits and could, if necessary, compel the plaintiffs to deliver a portion to the administratrix for any legitimate claims against the estate. The administratrix was advised to accomplish the administration with dispatch for early distribution. The trial court’s decision was affirmed, with costs against the defendant-appellant.