G.R. No. L-7075, March 25, 1912
RODRIGO ALBANO, administrator of the estate of Silverio Agtarap, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CORNELIO AGTARAP, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Lucio Agtarap died, leaving four heirs: his sons Silverio, Cornelio, and Nicolas, and his grandson Melecio. Upon Silverio’s death, his widow, Juana Domingo, initiated intestate proceedings, and Rodrigo Albano was appointed administrator of Silverio’s estate. Albano filed a civil action against Cornelio, Nicolas, and Melecio, alleging that they had taken possession of all properties left by Lucio, including Silverio’s one-fourth share, without delivering it to Silverio’s estate. The trial court ordered the defendants to deliver one-fourth of Lucio’s property to Albano, as administrator, for eventual distribution to Silverio’s heirs (widow and alleged daughter Eugenia) after proper proceedings. The defendants appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the administrator of Silverio’s estate may properly sue the other heirs of Lucio for the recovery and delivery of Silverio’s hereditary share in Lucio’s estate.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The action was essentially one to enforce co-ownership and secure Silverio’s one-fourth share in Lucio’s estate, which had been wrongfully withheld by the other heirs. The administrator, as the legal representative of Silverio’s estate, had the right to recover that share. However, the determination of who exactly are Silverio’s heirs (e.g., his widow Juana Domingo, alleged daughter Eugenia, or his brothers and nephew) and their respective portions, including the widow’s usufruct, must be made in the separate intestate proceedings of Silverio’s estate, not in this action. The Court held that the trial court correctly ordered the delivery of Silverio’s one-fourth share to the administrator for proper distribution in the special proceedings.

DISSENTING OPINION (Moreland, J.):
Justice Moreland argued that the appointment of an administrator and this lawsuit were unnecessary. Since there were no debts and the only dispute was among heirs, the proper remedy was a direct action for partition or to compel participation in possession among the heirs themselves, not an action by an administrator. He contended that the decision improperly allowed the administrator to sue for partition and that the probate court could not later alter the final judgment of this Court regarding the one-fourth share, even if it found that Silverio’s alleged heirs had no rightful claim.