9. UTULO vs VDA.

DE GARCIA
G.R. No. 45904 September 30, 1938
RULE 74 - SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
Facts:
Juan Garcia Sanchez died intestate, leaving three legitimate children namely Juan Garcia Jr., Patronicio
Garcia and Luz Garcia, who with the widow, are the presumptive forced heirs. Luz Garcia married to the
herein applicant Pablo G. Utulo and during the pendency of the administration proceedings of the said
deceased, she died leaving no legitimate descendants, and which only her mother and husband were
left. The latter commenced in the same court the judicial administration of the property of his deceased
wife stating in his petition that her only heirs were he himself and his mother-in-law, the oppositor, and
that the only property left by the deceased consisted in the share due her from the intestate of her
father, Juan Garcia Sanchez, and asking that he be named administrator of the property of said
deceased. Leona Pasion Vda de Garcia objected to the petition, opposing the judicial administration of
the property of her daughter and the appointment of the applicant as administrator. She alleged that in
as much as the said deceased left no indebtedness, there was no occasion for the said judicial
administration.
Issue: an administrator;
1.
Whet
her 2. Whether the appellant has a better right to the said office than the appellee.
upon
the Held:
admit 1. NO. Section 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the general rule that
ted when a person dies living property in the Philippine Islands, his property should be
facts judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a qualified
the administrator, in the order established in the section, in case the deceased left no will,
judici or in case he had left one should he fail to name an executor therein. However, is
al subject to the exceptions provided under sections 596 and 597 of the same code.
admi
nistra As provided for under section 596, this court repeatedly held that when a person dies
tion without leaving pending obligations to be paid, his heirs, whether of age or not, are not
of bound to submit the property to a judicial administration and the appointment of an
the administrator are superfluous and unnecessary proceedings. The same doctrine has
prop been applied in numerous cases already before the same courts. Hence, the court is
erty convinced that the case at bar is that of an unnecessary administration proceeding that
left only took time and occasion inconvenience and unnecessary expenses.
by 2. In view of the above ratiocination, the court then ruled that there is no need to
the determine which of the parties has preferential right to the office of the administrator.9
dece
ased
Luz
Garci
a lies,
with
the
conse
quen
t
appoi
ntme
nt of