Scribd
Upload
51 views

Figuracion-Gerilla V. Vda. de Figuracion (2006)

The Supreme Court ruled that partition of the estate properties was inappropriate because there were outstanding issues regarding expenses charged to the estate that needed to be resolved first. Specifically, the petitioner's father's estate required settlement proceedings to determine expenses from his final illness and burial before his heirs could partition the properties. The Court agreed with respondents that a prior settlement of accounts was necessary to establish the net estate for distribution among the heirs.

Uploaded by

Genesis Leal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views

Figuracion-Gerilla V. Vda. de Figuracion (2006)

The Supreme Court ruled that partition of the estate properties was inappropriate because there were outstanding issues regarding expenses charged to the estate that needed to be resolved first. Specifically, the petitioner's father's estate required settlement proceedings to determine expenses from his final illness and burial before his heirs could partition the properties. The Court agreed with respondents that a prior settlement of accounts was necessary to establish the net estate for distribution among the heirs.

Uploaded by

Genesis Leal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

FIGURACION-GERILLA v. VDA.

DE FIGURACION (2006)
Corona, J. | Partition

Petitioner: EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA


Respondents: CAROLINA VDA. DE FIGURACION, ELENA FIGURACION-ANCHETA,
HILARIA FIGURACION, FELIPA FIGURACION-MANUEL, QUINTIN FIGURACION and
MARY FIGURACION-GINEZ

Summary: Petitioner prays for partition of certain lots, to which respondents opposed,
averring that the estate should first undergo settlement proceedings before partition
among heirs could take place. (Basically, respondents wanted petitioner to share in the
expenses incurred for the care of their parents before she could get her part of the estate.)
SC agreed with respondents, ruling that in a situation where there remains an issue as to
the expenses chargeable to the estate, partition is inappropriate.
Doctrine: In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable to
the estate, partition is inappropriate. Heirs have to submit the estate to settlement first,
since the determination of alleged expenses cannot be done in an action for partition.

Facts
 Spouses Leandro and respondent Carolina Figuracion had six children: petitioner
Emilia and respondents Elena, Hilaria, Felipa, Quintin, and Mary.
 Leandro executed a deed of quitclaim over his real properties in favor of his six
children. When he died in 1958, he left behind two parcels of land: (1) Lot 2299
and (2) Lot 705, both in Urdaneta.
 Another lot, Lot 707, belonged to Eulalio Adviento. When Adviento died, his two
daughters, Agripina and respondent Carolina succeeded him to it. Agripina
executed a quitclaim in favor of petitioner over the one-half eastern portion of Lot
707. Before her half­sister’s death, however, respondent Carolina adjudicated unto
herself the entire Lot 707 which she later sold to respondents Felipa and Hilaria.
This triggered the dispute.
 Petitioner filed a complaint in the RTC Urdaneta for partition, annulment of
documents, reconveyance, quieting of title and damages against respondents,
praying (1) the partition of Lots 2299 and 705; (2) the nullification of the affidavit of
self-adjudication executed by respondent Carolina over Lot 707; and (3) a
declaration that petitioner was the owner of one-half of Lot 707.
 Respondents took the position that Leandro’s estate should first undergo
settlement proceedings before partition could take place, claiming that accounting
of expenses chargeable to the estate was necessary for such settlement.
 RTC nullified Carolina’s affidavit of self-adjudication and deed of absolute sale of
Lot 7071. The RTC, however, dismissed the complaint for partition, reconveyance
and damages on the ground that it could not grant the reliefs prayed for by
petitioner without any (prior) settlement proceedings wherein the transfer of title of
the properties should first be effected.
 CA upheld the dismissal of petitioner’s action. Hence this petition for review.

Issue, Held
WON 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 – YES
 Regarding Lot 705, the records refer to a case entitled Figuracion v. Alejo currently
pending in CA. Partition is premature when ownership of the lot is still in dispute.
 Regarding Lot 2299:
o There are two ways by which partition can take place under Rule 69: by
agreement (Section 2) and through commissioners when such agreement
cannot be reached, (Sections 3 to 6). Neither method specifies a procedure
for determining expenses chargeable to the decedent’s estate.
o In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable
to the estate, partition is inappropriate. Petitioner does not dispute that
certain expenses including those related to her father’s final illness and
burial have not been properly settled. Thus, the heirs have to submit their
father’s estate to settlement because the determination of these expenses
cannot be done in an action for partition.
 If it is any consolation to petitioner, the heirs 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 estates’ obligations.
DENIED.

1 As for Lot 707, Carolina et al. appealed the RTC Decision in a separate case before SC.

You might also like