Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 276 views

    Ralla V Untalan

    Uploaded by

    Dyane Garcia-Abaya
    1. This case involves an extrajudicial partition of 63 parcels of land between Pablo and Pedro Ralla that occurred prior to the probate of their father Rosendo Ralla's will. 2. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the partition, finding that it was made independently of the will probate and involved the estate of their mother Paz Escarella, not their father. 3. The Court also noted that Pablo and Pedro had fully carried out the partition terms and could not later challenge its validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ralla V Untalan

    Uploaded by

    Dyane Garcia-Abaya
    276 views2 pages
    1. This case involves an extrajudicial partition of 63 parcels of land between Pablo and Pedro Ralla that occurred prior to the probate of their father Rosendo Ralla's will. 2. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the partition, finding that it was made independently of the will probate and involved the estate of their mother Paz Escarella, not their father. 3. The Court also noted that Pablo and Pedro had fully carried out the partition terms and could not later challenge its validity.

    Original Description:

    specpro

    Original Title

    Ralla v Untalan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. This case involves an extrajudicial partition of 63 parcels of land between Pablo and Pedro Ralla that occurred prior to the probate of their father Rosendo Ralla's will. 2. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the partition, finding that it was made independently of the will probate and involved the estate of their mother Paz Escarella, not their father. 3. The Court also noted that Pablo and Pedro had fully carried out the partition terms and could not later challenge its validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    276 views2 pages

    Ralla V Untalan

    Uploaded by

    Dyane Garcia-Abaya
    1. This case involves an extrajudicial partition of 63 parcels of land between Pablo and Pedro Ralla that occurred prior to the probate of their father Rosendo Ralla's will. 2. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the partition, finding that it was made independently of the will probate and involved the estate of their mother Paz Escarella, not their father. 3. The Court also noted that Pablo and Pedro had fully carried out the partition terms and could not later challenge its validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    (RULE 75) PABLO RALLA VS. JUDGE UNTALAN, G.R. Nos.

    L-63253-54
    April 27, 1989
    FACTS:
    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    Rosendo Ralla, a widower, filed a petition for the probate of his own
    will in the CFI Albay leaving his entire estate to his son, Pablo Ralla
    (the petitioner herein who, upon his death during the pendency of
    this petition, was substituted by his heirs), leaving nothing to his
    other son, Pedro.
    Pedro Ralla filed an action for the partition of the estate of their
    mother, Paz Escarella
    In the course of the hearing of the probate case Pablo Ralla filed a
    motion to dismiss the petition for probate on the ground that he
    was no longer interested in the allowance of the will of his late
    father, Rosendo Ralla, for its probate would no longer be beneficial
    and advantageous to him. This motion was denied, and the denial
    was denied by the CA and the SC.
    The petitioner reiterated his lack of interest in the probate of the
    subject will. Consequently, the court, through Judge Perfecto
    Quicho, declared Pedro and Pablo Ralla the only heirs of Rosendo
    Ralla who should share equally upon the division of the latter's
    estate, and thereupon converted the testate proceedings into one
    of intestacy.

    5.

    The brothers extra judicially partitioned 63 parcels of land,


    apparently forming the estate of their deceased mother, Paz
    Escarella, dividing it between the two of them.

    6.

    Eleven years later, Joaquin Chancoco, brother-in- law of the


    petitioner (Pablo) filed a petition for the probate of the same will of
    Rosendo Ralla on the ground that the decedent owed him
    P5,000.00. Teodorico Almine, son-in-law of the petitioner, was
    appointed special administrator GRANTED, all objected by PEDRO
    (respondent)

    7.

    8.

    Heirs of Pedro Ralla (the private respondents herein) moved to


    exclude from the estate of Rosendo Ralla the aforesaid parcels of
    land (ung pinaghatian nung magkapatid)
    Respondent Judge Romulo P. Untalan ruled, that the 63 parcels of
    land should be included in the proceedings for the settlement of
    the estate of Rosendo Ralla and that said proceedings (both
    Special Proceedings No. 564(ung finile ni Rosendo) and Special
    Proceedings No. 1106 (filed ni Joaquin), which were ordered
    consolidated by this Court) should proceed as probate proceedings.

    9.

    Respondents sought the reconsideration for the exclusion of the 63


    parcel of lands from the probate proceedings. The partition was
    upheld and the lands should be excluded from the probate
    proceedings.

    10. Petitioners assails this ruling


    ISSUE: WON the extrajudicial partition of the 63 parcels made after the
    filing of the petition for the probate of the Will, and before said Will was
    probated, is a NULLITY, considering that as already decided by this
    Court in the case of Ernesto M. Guevara, vs. Rosario Guevara et al., Vol.
    74 Phil. Reports, there can be no valid partition among the heirs till
    after the Will had been probated
    HELD: VALID. It was made distinct and independent of the probate of the
    will of their father.

    The SC do not find any grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the
    questioned Order of upholding the partition. The first issued orders were
    merely interlocutory orders, courts may correct or amend if it deems
    proper.
    The properties involved in the present petition were the subject of the
    project of partition signed by both the petitioner, Pablo Ralla, and Pedro
    Ralla in Civil Case No. 2023; the lower court approved the said project of
    partition and the Ralla brothers jointly manifested that they had already
    received "the ownership and possession of the respective parcels of land
    adjudicated to them in the said project of partition," and upon their motion
    Judge Ezekiel Grageda declared the partition case closed and terminated in
    its Order of December 29, 1967; there was no appeal made
    Therefore the partition is valid and binding upon the petitioner and Pedro
    Ralla, as well as upon their heirs, especially as this was accompanied by
    delivery of possession to them of their respective shares in the inheritance
    from their mother, the late Paz Escarella. They are duty bound to respect
    the division agreed upon by them and embodied in the document of
    partition.
    Thus, the petitioner could no longer question the exclusion of the
    lands subject of the partition from the proceedings for the
    settlement of the estate of Rosendo Ralla.
    The rule is that there can be no valid partition among the heirs till after the
    will has been probated. This, of course, presupposes that the properties to
    be partitioned are the same properties embraced in the will. Thus the rule
    invoked is inapplicable in this instance where there are two separate

    cases (Civil Case No. 2023 for partition, and Special Proceedings No. 564
    originally for the probate of a will), each involving the estate of a different
    person (Paz Escarella and Rosendo Ralla, respectively) comprising
    dissimilar properties.
    Furthermore, the Court had occasion to rule that where a partition
    had not only been approved and thus become a judgment of the
    court, but distribution of the estate in pursuance of such partition
    had fully been carried out, and the heirs had received the property
    assigned to them, they are precluded from subsequently attacking
    its validity or any part of it.
    Likewise where a piece of land has been included in a partition, and there
    is no allegation that the inclusion was effected through improper means or
    without the petitioners' knowledge, the partition barred any further
    litigation on said title and operated to bring the property under the control
    and jurisdiction of the court for proper disposition according to the tenor of
    the partition . . . They can not attack the partition collaterally, as
    they are trying to do in this case

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy