You are on page 1of 2

EMILIA FIGURACION-GERILLA, Petitioner, vs. CAROLINA VDA. DE FIGURACION,* ELENA FIGURACION-ANCHETA,* HILARIA A.

FIGURACION, FELIPA FIGURACION-MANUEL, QUINTIN FIGURACION and MARY FIGURACION-GINEZ, Respondents. Ponente: Corona, J. Facts: Spouses Leandro and Carolina Figuracion, now both deceased, had six children: the petitioner and respondents herein. Leandro executed a deed of quitclaim over his real properties in favor of his six children. When Leandro died, he left behind two parcels of land, a portion of Lot 2299 and 705 in Urdaneta, both of which he inherited from his deceased parents. Another parcel of land, Lot 707, was inherited by Carolina and her half-sister Agripina when their father Eulalio Adviento died. Agripina then executed a quitclaim over the one-half eastern portion of the lot in favor of petitioner, Emilia, who died single and without any issue. Before her half-sisters death, however, Carolina adjudicated unto herself, via affidavit under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court the entire Lot 707 which she later sold to respondents Felipe and Hilaria. Petitioner and her family went to the United States where they stayed for ten years. When she returned, she built a house made of strong materials on the eastern half-portion of Lot 707. Sometime later, petitioner sought the extrajudicial partition of all properties held in common by her and respondents. The Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, upon a complaint filed by petitioner, rendered judgment nullifying Carolinas affidavit of self-adjudication and deed of absolute sale of Lot 707. The RTC, however, dismissed the complaint for partition, reconveyance and damages on the ground that reliefs prayed for cannot be granted without any prior settlement proceedings. The CA upheld the dismissal of petitioners action for partition for being premature but reversed the decision with respect to the nullification and the deed of absolute sale. Hence, this present petition. Issue: Whether or not there needs to be a prior settlement of Leandros intestate estate (that is, an accounting of the income of Lots 2299 and 705, the payment of expenses and liabilities and taxes, etc.) before the properties can be partitioned or distributed Ruling: Yes. Partition is inappropriate in a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable to the estate. Although petitioner points out that the estate is allegedly without any debt and respondents are the only legal heirs, she does not dispute the finding of the CA that certain expenses including those related to her fathers final illness and burial have not

been properly settled. Thus, with respect to Lot 2299, the heirs have to submit their fathers estate to settlement because the determination of these expenses cannot be done in an action for partition. The heirs or distributees, however, may take possession of the estate even before the settlement of accounts as long as they file a bond conditioned on the payment of the estates obligations. With respect to the partition of Lot 705, partition was deemed premature since ownership of the lot is still in dispute. As regards Lot 707, the Court made no ruling on the validity of Carolinas affidavit of self-adjudication and deed of sale since a separate case is still pending in the same Division of the Court.

You might also like