04 Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals
04 Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals
Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals Rivera, Perico & David Law Office for private respondents.
G.R. No. 129008. January 13, 2004. *
Remedial Law; Actions; Party-in-interest; Pending the filing of administration dated January 31, 1997, as well as itsResolution dated March 26, 1997, denying
2
proceedings, the heirs without doubt have legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the petitioners motion for reconsideration.
estate of the decedent in accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil On May 13, 1995, Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will in Angeles City
Code.Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without doubt have leaving several personal and real properties located in Angeles City, Dagupan
legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in accordance with City and Kalookan City. He also left a widow, respondent Esperanza P.
3
the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil Code that (t)he rights to succession are Orfinada, whom he married on July 11, 1960 and with whom he had seven
transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. The provision in turn is the children who are the herein respondents, namely: Lourdes P. Orfinada, Alfonso
foundation of the principle that the property, rights and obligations to the extent and Clyde P. Orfinada, Nancy P. Orfinada-Happenden, Alfonso James P. Orfinada,
value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to another or Christopher P. Orfinada, Alfonso Mike P. Orfinada (deceased) and Angelo P.
others by his will or by operation of law.
Orfinada. 4
Same; Same; Same; Court recognized the legal standing of the heirs to represent the
rights and properties of the decedent under administration pending the appointment of
Apart from the respondents, the demise of the decedent left in mourning his
an administrator.Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, paramour and their children. They are petitioner Teodora Riofero, who became a
the heirs may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is part of his life when he entered into an extra-marital relationship with her
the proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on party during the subsistence of his marriage to Esperanza sometime in 1965, and co-
representation, namely Section 3, Rule 3 and Section 2, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. In petitioners Veronica, Alberto and Rowena.
5 6
fact, in the case of Gochan v. Young, this Court recognized the legal standing of the On November 14, 1995, respondents Alfonso James and Lourdes Orfinada
heirs to represent the rights and properties of the decedent under administration discovered that on June 29, 1995, petitioner Teodora Rioferio and her children
pending the appointment of an administrator. executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of
_______________
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals. Rollo, pp. 17-20.
1
3Id., at p. 95.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Albino V. Gonzales for 4Ibid.
petitioners. 5 The Complaint for Annulment/Rescission of the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of a
_______________ Deceased Person dated December 2, 1995 contains an allegation under paragraph 9 that Veronica is
not one of the illegitimate children of the decedent Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. by Teodora Riofero but of
*SECOND DIVISION. one Alonzo Orfinada.
55 6 Rollo, p. 95.
favor of petitioners Teodora Rioferio, Veronica Orfinada-Evangelista, Alberto ground that respondents, as heirs, are the real parties-in-interest especially in
Orfinada and Rowena Orfinada-Ungos. Respondents also found out that the absence of an administrator who is yet to be appointed in S.P. Case No. 5118.
petitioners were able to obtain a loan of P700,000.00 from the Rural Bank of Petitioners moved for its reconsideration but the motion was likewise denied.
15 16
Mangaldan Inc. by executing a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties subject This prompted petitioners to file before the Court of Appeals their Petition for
of the extrajudicial settlement. 7 Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court docketed as CA G.R. S.P. No.
On December 1, 1995, respondent Alfonso Clyde P. Orfinada III filed 42053. Petitioners averred that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
17
a Petition for Letters of Administrationdocketed as S.P. Case No. 5118 before the issuing the assailed order which denied the dismissal of the case on the ground
Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, praying that letters of administration that the proper party to file the complaint for the annulment of the extrajudicial
encompassing the estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. be issued to him.
8 settlement of the estate of the deceased is the estate of the decedent and not the
On December 4, 1995, respondents filed a Complaint for the respondents. 18
Annulment/Rescission of Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision dated January 31, 1997,
19
Person with Quitclaim, Real Estate Mortgage and Cancellation of Transfer stating that it discerned no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
Certificate of Titles with Nos. 63983, 63985 and 63984 and Other Related of jurisdiction by the public respondent judge when he denied petitioners motion
Documents with Damages against petitioners, the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, to set affirmative defenses for hearing in view of its discretionary nature.
Inc. and the Register of Deeds of Dagupan City before the Regional Trial Court, AMotion for Reconsideration was filed by petitioners but it was
Branch 42, Dagupan City. 9 denied. Hence, the petition before this Court.
20
On February 5, 1996, petitioners filed their Answer to the aforesaid complaint The issue presented by the petitioners before this Court is whether the heirs
interposing the defense that the property subject of the contested deed of extra- have legal standing to prosecute the rights belonging to the deceased subsequent
judicial settlement pertained to the properties originally belonging to the to the commencement of the administration proceedings. 21
parents of Teodora Riofero and that the titles thereof were delivered to her as
10 Petitioners vehemently fault the lower court for denying their motion to set
an advance inheritance but the decedent had managed to register them in his the case for preliminary hearing on their affirmative defense that the proper
name. Petitioners also raised the affirmative defense that respondents are not
11 party to bring the action is the estate of the decedent and not the respondents. It
the real parties-in-interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in must be stressed that the holding of a preliminary hearing on an affirmative
view of the pendency of the administration proceedings. On April 29, 1996,
12 defense lies in the discretion of the court. This is clear from the Rules of Court,
petitioners filed a Motion to Set Affirmative Defenses for Hearing on the
13 thus:
aforesaid ground. _______________
_______________
14 CA Rollo, pp. 113-116.
15Id., at pp. 32-34.
7Id., at pp. 95-96. 16Id., at pp. 39-40.
8Id., at p. 96. 17Id., at pp. 1-12.
9Id., at pp. 28-37.
18Id., at p. 7.
10 CA Rollo, p. 38.
19 Rollo, pp. 17-20.
11Id., at p. 10.
20Id., at pp. 21-22.
12Id., at p. 38.
21Id., at p. 124.
13 Rollo, pp. 107-108.
58 Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, the heirs
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is
Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals the proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules
SEC. 5. Pleadings grounds as affirmative defenses.Any of the grounds for dismissal on party representation, namely Section 3, Rule 3 and Section 2, Rule 87 of the
26 27
provided for in this rule, except improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmative Rules of Court. In fact, in the case of Gochan v. Young, this Court recognized 28
defense, and a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had the legal standing of the heirs to represent the rights and properties of the
been filed. (Emphasis supplied.)
decedent under administration pending the appointment of an administrator.
22
Section 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses.If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for Supra, note 26.
29
dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion 60
of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.
The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer. (Emphasis supplied) Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals
Republic Planters Bank v. Agana, Sr., G.R. No. 51765, 269 SCRA 1, 12 (1997).
23
time do nothing while the rights and the properties of the decedent are violated or
Supranote 22.
24
dissipated.
59
VOL. 419, JANUARY 13, 2004 59 Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence recognizes two
exceptions, viz. (1) if the executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to
Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals
bring suit; and (2) when the administrator is alleged to have participated in the
30
operation of law. 25
the heirs to seek judicial relief to recover property of the estate is as compelling
when there is no appointed administrator, if not more, as where there is an
appointed administrator but he is either disinclined to bring suit or is one of the
guilty parties himself.
All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing to sue for the
recovery of property of the estate during the pendency of administration
proceedings has three exceptions, the third being when there is no appointed
administrator such as in this case.
As the appellate court did not commit an error of law in upholding the order
of the lower court, recourse to this Court is not warranted.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The assailed decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinezand Callejo, Sr.,
JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Note.Successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death of the
decedent and compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of law.
(Rabadilla vs. Court of Appeals, 334 SCRA 522 [2000])
o0o
_______________
61
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.