GR 115181; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115181 ; March 31, 2000
MARIA SOCORRO AVELINO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANGELINA AVELINO, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Maria Socorro Avelino, a compulsory heir of the late Antonio Avelino, Sr., filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration over his intestate estate. The other compulsory heirs, including the decedent’s first wife and other children, opposed the petition. Instead, they filed a motion to convert the proceedings into an action for judicial partition, alleging that all heirs except the petitioner desired an expeditious settlement.
The Regional Trial Court granted the motion and converted the petition into an action for judicial partition, directing the parties to submit a complete inventory of the estate. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed her petition for certiorari, affirming the trial court’s order. Hence, this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s conversion of the petition for letters of administration into an action for judicial partition.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the exceptions to the general rule requiring judicial administration of a decedent’s estate. Under Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, if the decedent left no debts and all heirs are of age (or minors are duly represented), the heirs may settle the estate extrajudicially without administration. Should they disagree, they may resort to an ordinary action for partition.
The Court found that the appellate court correctly determined the decedent left no debts and all heirs were of age. Consequently, the more expeditious remedy of partition was available and proper. The heirs, constituting the majority, could not be compelled to undergo administration proceedings. The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that administration was necessary to first determine the character and extent of the estate, holding that such inventory could be accomplished within the partition proceedings, especially given the absence of debts. Furthermore, the conversion ordered by the trial court was procedurally sound, as it was precisely the mechanism to implement the ordinary action for partition contemplated by Rule 74 when heirs disagree. No grave abuse of discretion was committed.