Trinidad Mactal was appointed as the administratrix of the intestate estate of Mauricia de Guzman. Mactal prayed that she be allowed to sell the only parcel of land belonging to the estate, so she can pay her debts. The court authorized Mactal to sell the land. Mactal proceeded to sell it to Silverio Choco. Mactal then paid the approved claims against the estate, which were all made after the sale of the parcel of land in favor of Choco. Choco then sold the property two years later, to the spouses Pio Villar and Trinidad Mactal, for P4,500. Villar and Trinidad Mactal mortgaged the land to PNB for the same amount.
Whether or not the sale in question should be annulled because it falls under the prohibition under article 1459 of the Civil Code, which enumerates persons who cannot take by purchase like agents and executors.
The proofs in this case do not substantiate this claim of the appellants. In order to bring the sale in this case within the part of article 1459, quoted above, it is essential that the proof submitted establish some agreement between Silverio Choco and Trinidad Mactal to the effect that Choco should buy the property for the benefit of Mactal. If there was no such agreement, either express or implied, then the sale can not be set aside. The evidence before this court does not establish such agreement. Realty may be sold or encumbered. — When there is no personal estate of the deceased or when, though there be such, its sale would redound to the detriment of the interests of the participants in the estate and the deceased has left no testamentary disposition for the payment of his debts and charges of administration, the court, on application of the executor or administrator, and on written notice to the heirs, devisees, and other persons interested, may grant him a license to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber for that purpose real estate, if it clearly appears that such sale, mortgaging or encumbrance would be beneficial to the persons interested and will not defeat any devise of land; in which case the assent of the
devisee shall be required.
Digest Credit: Shem Gasatan
One thought on “RODRIGUEZ VS. MACTAL G.R. No. L-39720 (April 4, 1934)”