Lucero v. Bañaga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eduviges Bañaga died intestate on September 24, 1921, survived by legitimate and acknowledged natural children. Special Proceedings No. 346 were instituted for the settlement of her estate. Rufina Pascasio initially administered the estate, and upon her death, her daughter Librada Lucero succeeded her as administratrix. Procedural History: On February 10, 1959, Librada Lucero submitted a project of partition dated July 19, 1957, which bore the conformity of most oppositors and heirs. The project allocated two-thirds of the estate to Anselmo Pascasio and the heirs of Rufina Pascasio, and one-third to Leonora Bañaga and Maria Bañaga. The project explicitly stated it was made with due regard to various considerations and that the heirs approved the distribution. It also stated that debts, charges, and taxes had been paid. After publication for non-resident heirs, the probate court issued an order approving the project of partition on December 23, 1966, noting the final accounting and the absence of opposition. The administratrix was directed to deliver the shares. The Petition: On May 15, 1967, after the order of approval had become final, the administratrix filed a motion to exclude sixteen registered lots from the partition, claiming their Torrens titles were not in the name of the deceased but in the names of other persons (Anselmo Pascasio, Rufina Pascasio, and Felix Pascasio, children of the deceased). She prayed for the order approving the partition to be set aside and a new partition for the 'true estate' to be ordered. Leonora Bañaga and Maria Bañaga opposed this motion. The probate court denied the motion for exclusion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The administratrix appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved pure questions of law.
Issue(s)
Whether properties not registered in the name of the deceased Eduviges Bañaga at the time of her death can be included in the distribution of her estate. Whether an approved project of partition, which has become final, can be set aside to exclude certain registered lots.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the lower court denying the administratrix's motion for exclusion and setting aside the project of partition. The case was remanded to the probate court for further proceedings consistent with the Court's directives.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of including properties not registered in the decedent's name: The Court held that the partition, once approved and final, should stand. It was presumed that the registered owners (children of the deceased) were holding the lots in trust for the estate, especially since these lots were included in the inventory and the project of partition with indications of their Torrens titles, and estate and inheritance taxes were paid on the theory that they belonged to the estate. The Court noted that the registered owners were children of the deceased, supporting the presumption of trust. The administratrix's contention that inclusion was a mistake might not be true, as she and her predecessor had possession and indicated the titles. The Court emphasized that if these registered owners were merely nominal owners or trustees, the partition would not be void. On the issue of setting aside an approved and final project of partition: The Court ruled that the partition, having been soberly deliberated upon, with the express concurrence of most interested parties, and having been approved by the probate court with the order becoming final after publication for absent heirs, could not be set aside. The administratrix's motion to exclude properties long after the approval and finality of the partition was denied. The Court stressed that the partition was a solemn agreement among the heirs and that to set it aside would cause injustice. The Court provided guidelines for the implementation of the partition, particularly concerning the registered lots, suggesting that the administratrix might need to file a separate action for reconveyance or pursue extrajudicial measures to clear the titles before conveying them to the distributees.
Main Doctrine
A project of partition, once approved by the probate court and the order of approval has become final, cannot be set aside on motion of the administratrix to exclude properties, especially when the inclusion of such properties was based on the conformity of the parties and the properties were treated as part of the estate, even if the Torrens titles were not in the decedent's name, as the registered owners may be presumed to be holding them in trust for the estate.