G.R. No. 129008. January 13, 2004.

* This Petition for Review on Certiorari, under

TEODORA A. RIOFERIO, VERONICA O. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeks to set aside
EVANGELISTA assisted by her husband ZALDY the Decision  of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
1

EVANGELISTA, ALBERTO ORFINADA, and SP No. 42053 dated January 31, 1997, as well as
ROWENA O. UNGOS, assisted by her husband itsResolution  dated March 26, 1997, denying
2

BEDA UNGOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

APPEALS, ESPERANZA P. ORFINADA, On May 13, 1995, Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr.
LOURDES P. ORFINADA, ALFONSO died without a will in Angeles City leaving
ORFINADA, NANCY P. ORFINADA, several personal and real properties located in
ALFONSO JAMES P. ORFINADA, Angeles City, Dagupan City and Kalookan
CHRISTOPHER P. ORFINADA and ANGELO P. City.  He also left a widow, respondent Esperanza
3

ORFINADA, respondents. P. Orfinada, whom he married on July 11, 1960

and with whom he had seven children who are the
Remedial Law; Actions; Party-in-
herein respondents, namely: Lourdes P. Orfinada,
interest; Pending the filing of administration
proceedings, the heirs without doubt have legal Alfonso “Clyde” P. Orfinada, Nancy P. Orfinada-
personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the Happenden, Alfonso James P. Orfinada,
decedent in accordance with the provision of Article Christopher P. Orfinada, Alfonso Mike P.
777 of the New Civil Code.—Pending the filing of Orfinada (deceased) and Angelo P. Orfinada. 4

administration proceedings, the heirs without doubt Apart from the respondents, the demise of the
have legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the decedent left in mourning his paramour and their
estate of the decedent in accordance with the provision children. They are petitioner Teodora Riofero,
of Article 777 of the New Civil Code “that (t)he rights who became a part of his life when he entered
to succession are transmitted from the moment of the into an extra-marital relationship with her during
death of the decedent.” The provision in turn is the the subsistence of his marriage to Esperanza
foundation of the principle that the property, rights
sometime in 1965, and co-petitioners
and obligations to the extent and value of the
inheritance of a person are transmitted through his Veronica,  Alberto and Rowena.
5 6

death to another or others by his will or by operation On November 14, 1995, respondents Alfonso
of law. James and Lourdes Orfinada discovered that on
Same; Same; Same; Court recognized the legal June 29, 1995, petitioner Teodora Rioferio and
standing of the heirs to represent the rights and her children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement
properties of the decedent under administration of
pending the appointment of an administrator.—Even _______________
if administration proceedings have already been
commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an  Rollo, pp. 17-20.
1

Id., at pp. 21-22.

2
administrator has not yet been appointed. This is the
Id., at p. 95.
3

proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to Ibid.

4

the heirs in the rules on party representation, namely  The Complaint for Annulment/Rescission of the
5

Section 3, Rule 3 and Section 2, Rule 87 of the Rules Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of a Deceased Person
of Court. In fact, in the case of Gochan v. Young, this dated December 2, 1995 contains an allegation under
Court recognized the legal standing of the heirs to paragraph 9 that Veronica is not one of the illegitimate
represent the rights and properties of the decedent children of the decedent Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. by Teodora
Riofero but of one Alonzo Orfinada.
under administration pending the appointment of an  Rollo, p. 95.
6

administrator.
56
PETITION for review on certiorari of the 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTAT
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals
Estate of a Deceased Person with
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Quitclaim involving the properties of the estate of
Court. Albino V. Gonzales for petitioners. the decedent located in Dagupan City and that
_______________
accordingly, the Registry of Deeds in Dagupan
*
 SECOND DIVISION. issued Certificates of Titles Nos. 63983, 63984
and 63985 in favor of petitioners Teodora
55
Rioferio, Veronica Orfinada-Evangelista, Alberto
VOL. 419, JANUARY 13, 2004 Orfinada and Rowena Orfinada-Ungos.
Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals Respondents also found out that petitioners were
     Rivera, Perico & David Law Office for private able to obtain a loan of P700,000.00 from the
respondents. Rural Bank of Mangaldan Inc. by executing
a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties
TINGA, J.: subject of the extrajudicial settlement. 7

On December 1, 1995, respondent Alfonso

Whether the heirs may bring suit to recover
“Clyde” P. Orfinada III filed a Petition for Letters
property of the estate pending the appointment of
of Administration docketed as S.P. Case No. 5118
an administrator is the issue in this case.
before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City,
praying that letters of administration amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the
encompassing the estate of Alfonso P. Orfinada, public respondent judge when he denied
Jr. be issued to him. 8
petitioners’ motion to set affirmative defenses for
On December 4, 1995, respondents filed hearing in view of its discretionary nature.
a Complaint for the Annulment/Rescission of AMotion for Reconsideration was filed by
Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate of a Deceased petitioners but it was denied.  Hence, the petition
20

Person with Quitclaim, Real Estate Mortgage before this Court.

and Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Titles The issue presented by the petitioners before
with Nos. 63983, 63985 and 63984 and Other this Court is whether the heirs have legal standing
Related Documents with Damages against to prosecute the rights belonging to the deceased
petitioners, the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, Inc. subsequent to the commencement of the
and the Register of Deeds of Dagupan City before administration proceedings. 21

the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dagupan Petitioners vehemently fault the lower court
City. 9
for denying their motion to set the case for
On February 5, 1996, petitioners filed preliminary hearing on their affirmative defense
their Answer to the aforesaid complaint that the proper party to bring the action is the
interposing the defense that the property subject estate of the decedent and not the respondents. It
of the contested deed of extra-judicial settlement must be stressed that the holding of a preliminary
pertained to the properties originally belonging to hearing on an affirmative defense lies in the
the parents of Teodora Riofero  and that the titles 10
discretion of the court. This is clear from the
thereof were delivered to her as an advance Rules of Court, thus:
inheritance but the decedent had managed to _______________
register them in his name.  Petitioners also raised
11
14
 CA Rollo, pp. 113-116.
the affirmative defense that respondents are not 15
Id., at pp. 32-34.
the real parties-in-interest but rather the Estate of 16
Id., at pp. 39-40.
Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of the pendency 17
Id., at pp. 1-12.
of the administration proceedings.  On April 29, 12
18
Id., at p. 7.
19
 Rollo, pp. 17-20.
1996, petitioners filed a Motion to Set Affirmative 20
Id., at pp. 21-22.
Defenses for Hearing  on the aforesaid ground.
13 21
Id., at p. 124.
_______________
58
7
Id., at pp. 95-96. 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTAT
Id., at p. 96.
Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals
8

9
Id., at pp. 28-37.
10
 CA Rollo, p. 38. SEC. 5. Pleadings grounds as affirmative defenses.—
11
Id., at p. 10. Any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this
12
Id., at p. 38. rule, except improper venue, may be pleaded as an
13
 Rollo, pp. 107-108. affirmative defense, and a preliminary hearing may be
57
had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been
filed.  (Emphasis supplied.)
22

VOL. 419, JANUARY 13, 2004

Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals Certainly, the incorporation of the word “may” in
The lower court denied the motion in the provision is clearly indicative of the optional
its Order  dated June 27, 1996, on the ground that
14 character of the preliminary hearing. The word
respondents, as heirs, are the real parties-in- denotes discretion and cannot be construed as
interest especially in the absence of an having a mandatory effect.  Subsequently, the
23

administrator who is yet to be appointed in S.P. electivity of the proceeding was firmed up
Case No. 5118. Petitioners moved for its beyond cavil by the 1997 Rules of Civil
reconsideration  but the motion was likewise
15 Procedure with the inclusion of the phrase “in the
denied. 16 discretion of the Court,” apart from the retention
This prompted petitioners to file before the of the word “may” in Section 6,  in Rule 16 24

Court of Appeals their Petition for thereof.

Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court Just as no blame of abuse of discretion can be
docketed as CA G.R. S.P. No. 42053.  Petitioners 17 laid on the lower court’s doorstep for not hearing
averred that the RTC committed grave abuse of petitioners’ affirmative defense, it cannot likewise
discretion in issuing the assailed order which be faulted for recognizing the legal standing of
denied the dismissal of the case on the ground the respondents as heirs to bring the suit.
that the proper party to file the complaint for the Pending the filing of administration
annulment of the extrajudicial settlement of the proceedings, the heirs without doubt have legal
estate of the deceased is the estate of the decedent personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of
and not the respondents. 18 the decedent in accordance with the provision of
The Court of Appeals rendered the Article 777 of the New Civil Code “that (t)he
assailed Decision  dated January 31, 1997, stating
19 rights to succession are transmitted from the
that it discerned no grave abuse of discretion moment of the death of the decedent.” The
provision in turn is the foundation of the principle 60
that the property, rights and obligations to the 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTAT
extent and value of the inheritance of a person Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals
_______________ time do nothing while the rights and the properties of
the decedent are violated or dissipated.
 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. It is Section 6, Rule 16 of
22

the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which reads: Even if there is an appointed administrator,
Section 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses.—If no motion to
dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for jurisprudence recognizes two exceptions, viz. (1)
in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer if the executor or administrator is unwilling or
and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had
thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.
refuses to bring suit;  and (2) when the
30

The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be without administrator is alleged to have participated in the
prejudice to the prosecution in the same or separate action of a act complained of  and he is made a party
31

counterclaim pleaded in the answer. (Emphasis supplied)

defendant.  Evidently, the necessity for the heirs
32

 Republic Planters Bank v. Agana, Sr., G.R. No.

23
to seek judicial relief to recover property of the
51765, 269 SCRA 1, 12 (1997).
Supranote 22.
24
estate is as compelling when there is no appointed
administrator, if not more, as where there is an
59 appointed administrator but he is either
VOL. 419, JANUARY 13, 2004 disinclined to bring suit or is one of the guilty
Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals parties himself.
are transmitted through his death to another or All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have
others by his will or by operation of law. 25
no legal standing to sue for the recovery of
Even if administration proceedings have property of the estate during the pendency of
already been commenced, the heirs may still administration proceedings has three exceptions,
bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been the third being when there is no appointed
appointed. This is the proper modality despite the administrator such as in this case.
total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on As the appellate court did not commit an error
party representation, namely Section 3, Rule of law in upholding the order of the lower court,
3  and Section 2, Rule 87  of the Rules of Court.
26 27
recourse to this Court is not warranted.
In fact, in the case of Gochan v. Young,  this 28
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is
Court recognized the legal standing of the heirs to DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of
represent the rights and properties of the decedent the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. No
under administration pending the appointment of costs.
an administrator. Thus: SO ORDERED.
The above-quoted rules,  while permitting an executor
29
      Puno (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria
or administrator to represent or to bring suits on behalf -Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
of the deceased, do not prohibit the heirs from
representing the deceased. These rules are easily Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
applicable to cases in which an administrator has
already been appointed. But no rule categorically
addresses the situation in which special proceedings
for the settlement of an estate have already been
instituted, yet no administrator has been appointed. In
such instances, the heirs cannot be expected to wait
for the appointment of an administrator; then wait
further to see if the administrator appointed would
care enough to file a suit to protect the rights and the
interests of the deceased; and in the mean-
_______________

25
 Coronel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103577, October 7,
1996, 263 SCRA 15.
26
 Section 3 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court:
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties.—Where the action is allowed to be
prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a
fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case
and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may
be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or
a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name
and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without
joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to
the principal.

 Section 2 of Rule 87:

27

Sec. 2. Executor or administrator may bring or defend actions which

survive.—For the recovery or protection of the property or rights of the
deceased, an executor or administrator may bring or defend, in the right of
the deceased, actions for causes which survive.”

 G.R. No. 131889, March 12, 2001, 354 SCRA 207.

28

Supra, note 26.

29