G.R. No. L-23372; June 14, 1967
IN RE: INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE PIO DURAN. CIPRIANO DURAN and MIGUEL DURAN, petitioners-appellants, vs. JOSEFINA B. DURAN, movant-oppositor and appellee.

FACTS

Pio Duran died intestate on February 28, 1961. Among his alleged heirs were his surviving spouse, Josefina Duran, and several brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces. On June 2, 1962, Cipriano Duran, a surviving brother, executed a public instrument assigning and renouncing his hereditary rights to the estate in favor of Josefina Duran for P2,500.00. On June 8, 1963, Cipriano Duran filed a petition for intestate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Albay, seeking settlement of the estate and his appointment as administrator. Josefina Duran opposed the petition, arguing Cipriano was not an “interested person” due to the deed of assignment and renunciation, and alternatively prayed for her own appointment as administratrix. Cipriano countered that Josefina was not the decedent’s lawful wife and that the deed was procured by fraud, with gross inadequacy of price and vitiated by lesion. Miguel Duran, another brother, later filed a petition to be joined as co-petitioner, which Josefina moved to strike out. The lower court dismissed Cipriano’s petition, ruling he lacked interest in the estate due to the deed of assignment, and that it could not collaterally examine the alleged fraud or lesion in those proceedings. Miguel’s petition to join was consequently deemed without basis. Cipriano and Miguel Duran appealed directly to the Supreme Court on questions of law.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the petition for settlement of estate on the ground that Cipriano Duran, having assigned his hereditary rights to a co-heir prior to the filing of the petition, was no longer an “interested person” qualified to initiate such proceedings under the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal order is affirmed. The Rules of Court require that a petition for administration and settlement of an estate be filed by an “interested person.” Cipriano Duran’s execution of a deed assigning and renouncing his hereditary rights to Josefina Duran prior to the initiation of any settlement proceedings rendered him without the requisite interest to file the petition. The assignment, being an extrajudicial partition between the parties, was valid and effective between them without need for court approval, as no settlement proceedings were pending at the time. The alleged fraud, lesion, or inadequacy of price does not render the deed void but merely voidable, and the proper remedy is a separate action for its annulment or rescission. Until the deed is annulled or rescinded, it remains valid and effective against Cipriano, disqualifying him as an “interested person.” The case of In re Irene Santos cited by appellants is inapplicable, as it involved an assignment made pendente lite during validly commenced settlement proceedings, which required court approval. Regarding Miguel Duran, his petition to join as co-petitioner was essentially a petition to intervene. Since the main petition for settlement was properly dismissed for lack of an interested petitioner, there was no proceeding in which to intervene. Josefina Duran’s alternative prayer for appointment as administratrix did not constitute a ratification of the petition, as it was conditional upon the denial of her motion to dismiss.