Bonaga vs. Soler

Bonaga vs. Soler

2 SCRA 755 |  30 June 1961

Spouses Alejandro Ros and Maria Isaac died in 1935 and 1940, respectively. The probate court appointed Juan Garza as administrator of the estate. Upon application, the probate court authorized Garza to sell certain parcels of land pertaining to the estate. Garza sold parcels of land (consisting of 21 parcels of abaca, coconut, pasture and forest lands with an aggregate area of more than 1,001 hectares) to Roberto Soler.

During World War II, the records of the case were destroyed. Upon reconstitution, the court appointed Julian Bonaga as administrator. Bonaga filed suit, in his capacity as administrator, to annul the sales in favor of Soler. He alleged that said transactions were fraudulent, made without notice to the heirs of Alejandro Ros of the hearing of the application to sell, and that the sales were not beneficial to the heirs for various reasons.

Soler filed three motions to dismiss, the first two were dismissed. He alleged in the third motion to dismiss various grounds including estoppel, prescription, and non-inclusion of necessary parties. The trial court dismissed the case.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the action without trial on the merits considering that there is allegation that the sale of the parcels of land to Soler did not comply with the requirements under the Rules of Court?

HELD: Yes, the trial court erred in dismissing the action without a hearing on the merits. The sale did not comply with requisites under the Rules of Court. Among these requisites, the fixing of the time and place of hearing for an application to sell, and the notice thereof to the heirs are essential; and without them, the authority to sell, the sale itself, and the order approving it would be null and void ab initio.

This requirement should apply regardless of the place of residence of those required to be notified under said rule.

Moreover, neither the deed of sale nor the orders issued by the probate court  in connection therewith show whether the personal properties were insufficient to pay the debts and expenses of administration. Neither is there showing that the sale was made for the purpose of paying the debts or expenses of administration