G.R. No. L-4138
SY HONG ENG, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SY LIOC SUY, defendant-appellant.
February 25, 1908

—

FACTS:

On December 28, 1906, petitioners initiated proceedings for the administration of the intestate estate of Sy Sek, who died on August 7, 1864. The petition also mentioned that Sy Sek’s three sons (Sy Kay, Sy Chun Tek, and Sy Lay) died in 1870, 1879, and 1890, respectively, leaving heirs, including the petitioners. Appellant Sy Lioc Suy opposed, alleging Sy Sek died testate and his property had been partitioned.

The petitioners later filed a second amended petition, abandoning the initial claim for Sy Sek’s estate, and instead sought the appointment of an administrator for the “joint estate” of Sy Kay, Sy Chun Tek, Sy Lay, and Sy Bang Co (whose death was not proven). The Court of First Instance granted this, appointing James J. Peterson as administrator for this “joint estate.”

Sy Lioc Suy appealed, arguing that the subsequent petition constituted a new and distinct proceeding, that administering the estates of multiple persons who died at different dates as a “joint estate” was improper, and that there was no proof of Sy Bang Co’s death.

Evidence showed that after Sy Sek’s death, a partnership was formed to continue his business, and profits were distributed to the families twice a year for over thirty years (until 1903 or 1904), when remittances stopped, leading to these proceedings. While appellees admitted the partnership, they claimed they never consented to it.

—

ISSUE:

1. Can the Court of First Instance, in its probate jurisdiction, appoint a single administrator for the “joint estate” of multiple persons who died at different dates, and for one person whose death has not been proven?
2. Is property that has been extrajudicially managed through a partnership and whose profits distributed for over 30 years still subject to probate administration?

—

RULING:

The Supreme Court REVERSED the order of the Court of First Instance and directed the dismissal of the proceeding.

1. NO. The Court ruled that there is no law or practice that authorizes a single proceeding for the settlement of the estates of multiple persons who died at different dates, nor the appointment of one administrator for their estates as a “joint estate.” Furthermore, the court has no right to appoint an administrator for a person without receiving some proof of their death (specifically for Sy Bang Co).
2. NO. The Court found that the parties had so treated the property left by Sy Sek (by forming a partnership and distributing profits for over thirty years) that it could no longer be considered a subject of administration by the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its probate jurisdiction. If the petitioners claim ownership of a part of the property in the possession of the appellant, they should seek relief against him in an ordinary action at law, not through probate proceedings.