G.R. No. L-6463, August 12, 1911
Damasa Alcala vs. Modesta Pabalan, et al.

FACTS

On June 11, 1910, Damasa Alcala (widow of Juan Banatin) filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of La Laguna to be appointed administratrix of a house left by her deceased husband. The lower court granted her petition. The defendantsModesta Pabalan, Procopio Pabalan, Basilio Salgado, and Juan Banay-banayappealed.

The undisputed facts show that Juan Banatin died on April 23, 1897, survived by his widow Damasa Alcala and 17 nieces and nephews. On June 13, 1897, the widow and 16 of the heirs entered into a voluntary agreement to divide all of Banatin’s estate, except the house in question, which was to remain undivided. Under the agreement, Damasa Alcala was entitled to one-half of the usufruct of the house during her lifetime, while the other half would be shared equally among the 17 heirs. Francisco Salgado (one nephew) was appointed administrator to collect rents and distribute them accordingly.

Due to Salgado’s failure to remit Alcala’s share, she sued him and obtained a judgment (Alcala v. Salgado, 7 Phil. 151). An execution sale followed in 1907, where one-half of the undivided property was sold to Macario Decena. In October 1908, that half was repurchased using funds contributed by the four defendants (Modesta Pabalan, Procopio Pabalan, Basilio Salgado, and Juan Banay-banay). Subsequently, on November 25, 1908, 13 of the heirs recognized the four defendants as owners of that half, and 16 heirs unanimously appointed Modesta Pabalan as administratrix of the entire house, replacing the deceased Francisco Salgado. Since then, Pabalan had been administering the property and remitting half the rents to Alcala.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in appointing Damasa Alcala as administratrix of the property on the ground that it still formed part of the estate of Juan Banatin, thereby subject to administration by the probate court.

RULING

Yes, the lower court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision.

The Court held that after the heirs of Juan Banatin voluntarily agreed to partition the estate among themselves in 1897, the property ceased to be part of the decedent’s estate. The house, though kept undivided, became the common property of the heirs as tenants in common. There was no longer any estate of Juan Banatin to be administered through probate proceedings. The heirs, as co-owners, had the right under Article 398 of the Civil Code to appoint an administrator for the undivided property by majority agreement. Here, 16 of the 17 heirs had already appointed Modesta Pabalan as administratrix in 1908. Thus, the lower court’s appointment of Alcala was based on an incorrect premise that the property remained part of the estate. The Court revoked Alcala’s appointment without addressing the rights of a usufructuary to manage the property, as that issue was not pertinent to the case.