- The document discusses the rules regarding the sale, mortgage, or encumbrance of a decedent's estate under Philippine probate law. - It states that court approval is required for any disposition of property under administration, and failure to provide notice to interested parties makes any such transaction void. - It also addresses a specific case where an administratrix sold estate property without court authorization, which the Supreme Court upheld the probate court's power to annul as a null and void transaction.

1. RUSHID JAY S. SANCON

2.  upon written application of
executor or administrator, the
court may order the whole or
part of a personal estate
 written notice to the heirs and other persons
interested
 If it is appears that it is necessary for paying
debts, expenses of administration, or legacies, or
for preservation of the property

3. Q: Is notice to the interested party in such
sale, mortgage or encumbrance of
decedent’s estate mandatory? What is the
effect in case of failure to give notice?
 Answer: Yes. Such notice is
mandatory, without which the sale,
mortgage or encumbrance made is
void.

4. Q: May the court authorize the sale, mortgage,
or other encumbrance in lieu of personal
estate? Under what instances?
 Answer: Yes.
 When the personal estate is not sufficient to pay
debts, expenses of administration and legacies.
 The sale of the subject personal estate may injure
the business or other interests of those interested
in the estate
Note: Where a testator has not otherwise made
sufficient provision for the payment of such debts,
expenses, and legatees residing in the Philippines
(Section 2, Rule 89)

5.  No authority to sell, mortgage, or encumbrance
shall be granted of real or personal
 interested person opposing such authority must
post a bond to be fixed by the court and at such
time court may direct

6.  Although not necessary to pay debts,
legacies, or expenses of administration,
the court may authorize the sale of real or
personal property estate if:
 Beneficial to the heirs, devisees,
legatees, and other interested persons;
and
 If it is not inconsistent with the
provisions of a will.

7.  Even if the sale, mortgage, and encumbrance
of personal and real estate is not necessary to
pay the debts, expenses of administration, or
legacies in the Philippines, the court may
authorize the executor or administrator to
sell, mortgage or encumber the personal or
real estate for paying the debts, expenses of
administration and legacies outside the
country.

8.  the sale, mortgage or
encumbrance of realty acquired in
favor of the estate shall be
governed by the same regulations
prescribed under this rule

9.  the executor or administrator shall file a
written petition setting forth, the debts due
from the deceased and other expenses
 Fixing by the court of time and place to hear
the petition, and causing notice, to be given
personally or mail to interested persons
 Executor and administration shall likewise give
additional bond, if the court requires it

10.  if all of the requirements of the above have
been complied with, the court by order
stating such compliance, may authorize the
sale, mortgage, or encumber the part of the
estate as it deemed necessary
 the provisions concerning notice of execution
sale shall govern the notice of the time and
place of the estate to be sold at auction
 Recording in the registry of deeds of the
province in which the real estate of the sale,
mortgage or otherwise encumbered is
situated

11.  It being settled that property under
administration needs the approval of
the probate court before it can be
disposed of, any unauthorized
dispositions does not bind the estate
and is null and void

12. Q: With respect to heirs, is there a need for a
court approval before they can exercise their right
to dispose their ideal share?
 Answer: No. it is settled that court approval is
necessary for the validity of any disposition of
the decedent’s estate. However, reference to
judicial approval cannot adversely affect the
substantive rights of the heirs to dispose of their
ideal share in the co-ownership among the heirs.
(Beltran v. Donato, 32 Phil. 66)

13. - Both covers a contract entered by the deceased to
convey real or property interest therein during his
lifetime and those property he hold in trust
Q: Is notice for such conveyance mandatory?
Answer: Yes. The authority to convey as provided for in
this section can be given only after notice of the
application for that purpose has been given to all
persons interested, otherwise, the order authorizing
the conveyance and as well as the conveyance itself
is null and void. (De Jesus v. De Jesus, 35 SCRA 548)

14.  Q: In both cases who may file for an application for
such conveyance and those held in trust?
Answer : The standing to such course of
action before the probate court inures to
any person who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment or to be entitled to
the avails of the suit.
 Q: Who may be authorized by the court to
effectuate such order of conveyance?
Answer: The executor or administrator shall e
authorized by the court
If such conveyance is in favor of the executor or
administrator, the Clerk of Court shall execute
the deed.

15. Facts:
 Spouses Dolores Sebastian and Rufino Carreon died
in 1974, leaving an adoptive daughter Aurora
Carreon
 In the same year, Fausta Carreon Herrera instituted
special proceedings in the then CFI of Quezon City
for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
Fausta was appointed as special administrator by
the court
 In 1975, Aurora Carreon executed an extra-judicial
settlement of the estate of the deceased spouses,
adjudicating to herself all the real property of the
said spouses. Later she was appointed as
administrator of the estate.

16.  Meanwhile, Aurora sold properties of the estate,
without prior approval from the court, consisting of
three fishponds located in Hagonoy, Bulacan to
Eladio Dillena, herein petitioner.
 The petitioner, on the other hand, sold the said
properties to Luisa Rodriguez and Starlight Industries
Co., Inc.
 The court having learned such sale transaction and
the transfer of the same, required the vendees to
appear, and explain why the deed should not be
cancelled due to the absence of the courts approval
to such transactions.
 Eladio and Luisa failed to appear.
 The court on September 1984 declared the sale of
administrator to Eladio and Luisa null and void for
having been made without court’s authority and
approval.

17.  Eladio filed a petition to annul its order, arguing
it has no power to annul the sale.
 The probate court denied his petition and
ordered the petitioners to return the physical
possession of the fishpond. They filed a motion
for reconsideration was denied. Such decision
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
 On appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner
contended that the probate court has no power
to annul the sale entered by him and the
administratrix.
Issue:
 Whether or not the contention of the petitioner
in correct

18. Held:
 The evidence shows that when the questioned properties
were sold without court approval by private respondent to
petitioner, the same were under administration. The
subject properties therefore are under the jurisdiction of
the probate court which according to our settled
jurisprudence has the authority to approve any disposition
regarding properties under administration.
 An administratrix of an estate already subject of a special
proceeding pending before the probate court cannot enjoy
blanket authority to dispose of real properties as she
pleases. More emphatic is the declaration We made in
Estate of Olave vs. Reyes (123 SCRA 767) wherein We
stated that when the estate of the deceased person is
already the subject of a testate or intestate proceeding,
the administrator cannot enter into any transaction
involving it without prior approval of the probate court.
 To uphold petitioner's contention that the probate court
cannot annul the unauthorized sale, would render
meaningless the power pertaining to the said court. Sales
of properties under administration which do not comply with
the requisites under sections 4 and 7 of Rule 89 are null
and void (Bonaga vs. Soler, 2 SCRA 755).