Illegal settlement of estate
Dear PAO, I discovered that my siblings from the mistress of my father (deceased) partitioned his estate siblings and relayed that I will initiate an appropriate case against them to recover my lawful share from the estate of my deceased father. They just laughed and alleged that my claim prescribed since two years have already elapsed. Please guide me on the matter.
Jessie
Dear Jessie,
The remedy of an heir deprived of his share in the partition of estate is found under Section 4, Rule 74 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, which states that:
“If it shall appear at any time within two years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation. And if within the same time of two years, it shall appear that there are debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances require, against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made.”
This rule was explained in the case of Segura, et al. vs Segura, et al. (GR L-29320 Sept. 19, 1988), where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Isagani Cruz, said:
“This section provides in gist that a person who has been deprived of his lawful participation in the estate of the decedent, whether as heir or as creditor, must assert his claim within two years after the extrajudicial or summary settlement of such estate under Sections 1 and 2 respectively of the same Rule 74. Thereafter, he will be precluded from doing so as the right will have prescribed.
“It is clear that Section 1 of Rule 74 does not apply to the partition in question which was null and void as far as the plaintiffs were concerned. The rule covers only valid partitions. The partition in the present case was invalid because it excluded six of the nine heirs who were entitled to equal shares in the partitioned property. Under the rule, “no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.” As the partition was a total nullity and did not affect the excluded heirs, it was not correct for the trial court to hold that their right to challenge the partition had prescribed after two years from its execution in 1941.”
Applying this decision in your situation, you can still recover your share on the estate left by your father, which was partitioned by your siblings. It is not true that prescription has already set in because the two-year period stated under Section 4, Rule 74 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court applies only to valid partition. The partition between your siblings was invalid because you were excluded.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Editor’ s note: Dear PA O is a daily column of the Public Attorney’ s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net