Property after death

Ian Alfredo Magno

ONE trait Filipino families seem to share in common is the perennial notion of death as taboo. Particularly when taking inheritance into context, one could be easily rebuked for it as “tunglo” (death-wish).  Some may even consider it distasteful if not, perhaps, offensive.  Meanwhile, the unbiased few simply figure it as practical.

It is quite a usual scenario among heirs, after burying their dead, to find themselves at a quandary on how to apportion, allocate or manage properties left behind by a departed loved one.  Oftentimes, in fact, such dilemma just could not spare domestic harmony.  Hence, the law provides for certain guides or outlines, so to speak, intended to avert family controversy in the settlement of estates, in accordance with public policy.

In a nutshell, settlement of estates could either be testate (with a will) or intestate (without a will).  In the case of testate succession, the law puts a premium over the desires of the decedent and would preserve and observe the same, for as long as it is not contrary to law or public policy.  One technical requisite is necessary though; that such will (or frequently referred to as “last will and testament) must first be probated or allowed in court.  Thus Section 1, Rule 75, Part II of the Rules of Court provides: “Section 1… No will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court….”

Meanwhile, if the decedent left no will, the heirs may summarily settle the estate via extrajudicial settlement, provided the conditions set forth in Section 1, Rule 74, Part II of the Rules of Court are met, thus: “Section 1… If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition.

“… The parties to an extrajudicial settlement… shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public instrument… in the office of the register of deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved….

“The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation…”

Question:  what if the decedent left a will, but the heirs – without submitting the will to the court – partitioned the estate extra-judicially among themselves?

In the case of Riosa vs. Rocha 48 Phil 737, the Supreme Court decreed that extra-judicial settlement is not proper in testate succession.  Further, in Guevarra vs. Guevarra G.R. No. L-48840 December 29, 1943, the Honorable Court said:“Even if the decedent left no debts and nobody raises any question as to the authenticity and due execution of the will, none of the heirs may sue for the partition of the estate in accordance with that will without first securing its allowance or probate by the court, first, because the law expressly provides that ‘no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court’; and, second, because the probate of a will, which is a proceeding in rem, cannot be dispensed with or substituted by any other proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, without offending against public policy designed to effectuate the testator’s right to dispose of his property by will in accordance with law…. ”

Talking about practicality, does it not seem impractical if heirs must undergo court process (which usually consumes lengthy periods) and spend huge sums of money–for the approval of a will, which they are willing to abide by anyway–and which they could expeditiously and inexpensively accomplish if done extra-judicially?  To such an extent, maybe yes, the redundancy and expense seem to render it impractical.

(Atty. Ian Alfredo T. Magno is an associate at Atty. Francis U. Ku & Associates, and deputy legal officer at Philhealth. E-mail: Ianalfredom@gmail.com)