G.R. No. L-19064. January 31, 1964.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF PAZ E. SIGUION TORRES, deceased, ALBERTO S. TORRES, petition-appellant, vs. CONCHITA TORRES and ANGEL S. TORRES, oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Alberto S. Torres, claiming to be one of the four legitimate children of the deceased Paz E. Siguion Torres, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration over her intestate estate. He alleged the estate had no debts. This petition was opposed by heir Conchita Torres, who asserted that an extrajudicial partition of the estate had already been executed by all the heirs on January 27, 1960, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, making administration unnecessary.
In his answer, Alberto admitted the execution of the extrajudicial deed but contended that attempts at the actual physical division of the properties had failed, necessitating court intervention. He subsequently filed a supplemental answer alleging, for the first time and without oath, that the estate had an existing debt of P50,000.00 and that some valuable properties were not included in the partition. The lower court dismissed the petition for administration, finding that a valid extrajudicial settlement had already been consummated by the heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petition for letters of administration in view of the executed extrajudicial partition and the subsequent allegations of debt and unpartitioned properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic rests on the application of Section 1, Rule 74, which allows heirs of age to settle the estate of a deceased who left no debts extrajudicially by means of a public instrument. The Court found the conditions for this rule were met: the decedent left no will, the heirs were all of age, and the extrajudicial deed itself expressly stated the deceased left no debts. The petitioner’s subsequent unverified allegations did not invalidate this settled fact for the purpose of requiring administration.
The Court ruled that the alleged inability of the heirs to agree on a physical division is not a ground for administration but is precisely the scenario addressed by the rule, which provides the remedy of an ordinary action for partition. The belated and unsworn claim of a P50,000.00 debt was insufficient, as it lacked particulars such as the creditor’s identity and the manner of contracting, failing to constitute a concise statement of a cause of action to warrant a special proceeding. Similarly, claims of other unlisted properties do not necessitate administration; questions of title and partition for such properties can be litigated in an ordinary partition action. Thus, no necessity for a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate existed.