EMILIA FEGURACION-GUERILLA v. CAROLINA VDA.

DE FIGURACION,* ELENA
FIGURACION-ANCHETA,* HILARIA A. FIGURACION, FELIPA FIGURACION-
MANUEL, QUINTIN FIGURACION and MARY FIGURACION-GINEZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 154322 August 22, 2006 Second Division (Corona, J.)

FACTS:
Spouses Leandro and respondent Carolina Figuracion (both deceased) had 6 children,
petitioner and respondents Elena (deceased), Hilaria, Felopa, Quintin, and Mary. In
Aug. 1955, Leandro executed a quitclaim over his real properties in favor of his children.
When he died, he left behind 2 parces of land (Lot 2299 and Lot 705, both in the names
of Leandro married to Carolina), which he inherited from his parents. These lots were
evidenced by an OCT issued by RoD of Pangasinan.

A portion of Lot 2299 was sold by Lenadro to Lazaro Adivento. A TCT “was issued to
Lazaro Adveinto, married to Rosenda Sagueped”. The remaining portion was owned by
Leandro.

The issue that arose between Emilia (petitioner) and Mary (respondent) was with regard
to the eastern half of Lot 707, which belonged to Eulalio Adviento. Such lot was
inherited by his two daughters Agripina (daughter with his first wife) and respondent
Carolina (daughter with his 2nd wife). Agripina executed a quitclaim in favor of Emilia
over the ½ eastern portion of the contested lot. Before Agripina died in 1963, however,
Carolina adjudicated onto herself (via an affidavit under Rule 74) the entire contested lot
and later sold the same to respondents Hilaria and Felipa.

Emilia and her family eventually went to the United States and stayed there for a
decade. When she returned to the Philippines, she built a house on the eastern half-
portion of the contested lot (Lot 707) and continued to pay her share of the realty taxes
thereon.

PETITIONER’S PRAYER

Later on, Emilia sought the extrajudicial partition of the properties that she and the
respondents held in common. Thus, she filed before the RTC of Urdaneta City a petition
for partition, annulment of documents, reconveyance, quieting of title, and damages
against the respondents. Emilia prayed for:

 the partition of Lots 2299 and Lot 705

 nullification of the affidavit of self-adjudication excecuted by Carolina over Lot

707

 nullification of the deed of absolute sale in favor of Felipa and Hilaria

 A declaration that Elena was the owner of ½ of Lot 707

  Damages

RESPONDENT’S CONTETION:

 Leandro’s estate should first undergo settlement proceedings before it can be

partitioned among the heirs

 There should be an accounting of the ecpenses chargeable to the estate – They

spent for the maintenance of Leandro and his wife in their final years and
respondents wanted Emilia to share in the expenses for their parents during the
time she was in the US, before she could get her share in the estate

RTC:

 Nullified Carolina’s affidavit of self-adjudication

 Nullified the deed of absolute sale of Lot 707

 Lots 2299 and 705 were exclusively owned by Leandro and they owned part of
his estate

 Dismissed the complaint for partition, reconveyance and damages – these could
not be granted without prior settlement proceedings where the transfer of title of
properties should be effected

CA:

 Upheld the dismissal of Elena’s petiton for partition – it was premature

 Declared as valid the decision regarding the deed of sale and the self-
adjudication

 Lot 707 was partitioned

ISSUE: W/N there needs to be a prior settlement of Leandro’s intestate estate (that is,
an accounting of the income of Lots 2299 and 705, the payment of expenses, liabilities
and taxes, plus compliance with other legal requirements, etc.) before the properties
can be partitioned or distributed.

RULING:
PARTITION IS PREMATURE WHEN OWNERSHIP OF THE LOT IS STILL IN
DISPUTE.

There are two ways by which partition can take place under Rule 69: by agreement
under Section 211 and through commissioners when such agreement cannot be
reached, under Sections 3 to 6.12
Neither method specifies a procedure for determining expenses chargeable to the
decedent’s estate. While Section 8 of Rule 69 provides that there shall be an
accounting of the real property’s income (rentals and profits) in the course of an action
for partition,13 there is no provision for the accounting of expenses for which property
belonging to the decedent’s estate may be answerable, such as funeral expenses,
inheritance taxes and similar expenses enumerated under Section 1, Rule 90 of the
Rules of Court.

In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable to the

estate, partition is inappropriate. While petitioner points out that the estate is
allegedly without any debt and she and respondents are Leandro Figuracion’s only legal
heirs, she does not dispute the finding of the CA that "certain expenses"
including those related to her father’s final illness and burial have not been
properly settled.14 Thus, the heirs (petitioner and respondents) have to submit
their father’s estate to settlement because the determination of these expenses
cannot be done in an action for partition.

In estate settlement proceedings, there is a proper procedure for the accounting

of all expenses for which the estate must answer. If it is any consolation at all to
petitioner, the heirs or distributees of the properties may take possession thereof even
before the settlement of accounts, as long as they first file a bond conditioned on the
payment of the estate’s obligations.