7/28/2019 Sandejas v Lina

1/2

G.R. No. 141634 February 5, 2001

Heirs of Spouses REMEDIOS R. SANDEJAS and ELIODORO P. SANDEJAS SR. -- ROBERTO R.

SANDEJAS, ANTONIO R. SANDEJAS, CRISTINA SANDEJAS MORELAND, BENJAMIN R.SANDEJAS, REMEDIOS R. SANDEJAS, and heirs of SIXTO S. SANDEJAS II, RAMON R.

SANDEJAS, TERESITA R. SANDEJAS, and ELIODORO R. SANDEJAS JR., all represented by

ROBERTO R. SANDEJAS, petitioners,vs.

ALEX A. LINA, respondent.

INTRODUCTION (worth-reading to give you a gist of the entire case):

A contract of sale is not invalidated by the fact that it is subject to probate court approval.

The transaction remains binding on the seller-heir, but not on the o ther heirs who have not

given their consent to it. In settling the estate of the deceased, a probate court has

jurisdiction over matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of its recognized powers.

Such matters include selling, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering realty belonging to the

estate. Rule 89, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, deals with the conveyance of real property

contracted by the decedent while still alive. In contrast with Sections 2 and 4 of the same

Rule, the said provision does not limit to the executor or administrator the right to file the

application for authority to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber realty under

administration. The standing to pursue such course of action before the probate court inures

to any person who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or to be entitled to the

avails of the suit

FACTS:

- Eliodoro Sandejas, Sr. filed a petition in the lower court praying that letters ofadministration be issued in his favor for the settlement of the estate of his wife,

REMEDIOS R. SANDEJAS, who died on April 17, 1955

- Letters of Administration were issued and he took his oath as an administrator- On April 19, 1983, an Omnibus Pleading for motion to intervene and petition-in-

intervention was filed by [M]ovant Alex A. Lina alleging among others that on June

7, 1982, movant and [A]dministrator Eliodoro P. Sandejas, in his capacity a s seller,

bound and obligated himself, his heirs, administrators, and assigns, to sell forever

and absolutely and in their entirety the following parcels of land which formed

part of the estate of the late Remedios R. Sandejas *(intervenor filed an evidence

of receipt of earnest money with promise to buy; P70,0 00.00 was given as earnest

money and another P100,000.00 in addition therewith)*

- "On January 7, 1985, the counsel for [A]dministrator Eliodoro P. Sandejas filed a[M]anifestation alleging among others that the administrator, Mr. Eliodoro P.

Sandejas, died sometime in November 1984 in Canada. He also alleged, among

others that the matter of the claim of Intervenor Alex A. Lina becomes a money

claim to be filed in the estate of the late Mr. Eliodoro P. Sandejas

- Respondent Alex Lina moved for the consolidation of this civil case with the specialproceedings case: 'IN RE: INTESTATE ESTATE OF ELIODORO P. SANDEJAS, SR;

- The motion was granted by the court- Intervenor Alex A. Lina filed [a] Motion for his appointment as a new administrator

of the Intestate Estate of Remedios R. Sandejas which was granted by the court.

However, Sixto, the son of Sandejas, moved that he be the one to be assigned as

the administrator; such motion was granted by the court. Alex was replaced by

Sixto

- Ruling of the Lower Court:o The lower court upheld the sale between Sandejas and Alex Lina and

directed to pay the balance of the purchase price amounting to

P729,000.00 within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Order and the

Administrator is directed to execute within thirty (30) days thereafter

the necessary and proper deeds of conveyancing

- Ruling of the Court of Appeals:o No sale involved. The CA held that the contract between Eliodoro

Sandejas Sr. and respondent was merely a contract to sell, not a

perfected contract of sale.

o The CA held that Section 1, Rule 897 of the Rules of Court wasinapplicable, because the lack of written notice to the o ther heirs

showed the lack of consent of thos e heirs other than Eliodoro Sandejas

Sr. For this reason, bad faith was imputed to him, for no one is allowed

to enjoyed a claim arising from ones own wrongdoing. Thus, Eliodoro

Sr. was bound, as a matter of justice and good faith, to comply with his

contractual commitments as an owner and heir.

- Petitioner files a petition before the Supreme Court; contentions:o jurisdiction over ordinary civil action seeking not merely to enforce a

sale but to compel performance of a contract falls upon a civil court,

not upon an intestate court; and (b) that Section 8 of Rule 89 allows the

executor or administrator, and no one else, to file an application for

approval of a sale of the property under administration.

ISSUE:

Whether the [trial court] acting as a probate court could approve the sale and compel the

petitioners to execute [a] deed of conveyance even for the share alone of Eliodoro P.

Sandejas Sr." YES.

RULING:

7/28/2019 Sandejas v Lina

2/2

- Probate jurisdiction covers all matters relating to the settlement of estates (Rules74 & 86-91) and the probate of wills (Rules 75-77) of deceased persons, including

the appointment and the removal of administrators and executors (Rules 78-85). It

also extends to matters incidental and collateral to the exercise of a probate

court's recognized powers such as selling, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering

realty belonging to the estate. Indeed, the rules on this point are intended to

settle the estate in a speedy manner, so that the benefits that may flow from

such settlement may be immediately enjoyed by the heirs and the beneficiaries

- In the present case, the Motion for Approval was meant to settle the decedent'sobligation to respondent; hence, that obligation clearly falls under the jurisdiction

of the settlement court. To require respondent to file a separate action -- on

whether petitioners should convey the title to Eliodoro Sr.'s share of th e disputed

realty -- will unnecessarily prolong the settlement of the intestate estates of the

deceased spouses.

- The suspensive condition did not reduce the conditional sale between Eliodoro Sr.and respondent to one that was "not a definite, clear and absolute document of

sale," as contended by petitioners. Upon the occurrence of the condition, the

conditional sale became a reciprocally demandable obligation that is binding upon

the parties