Quasha v. LCN Construction, G.R. No. 174873 | 26 August 2008

CASE DIGEST

Quasha v. LCN Construction, 

G.R. No. 174873 | 26 August 2008 

Topic: Partition; Distribution of the estate 

Facts: 

Raymond Triviere passed away and a proceeding for the settlement of his intestate estate was instituted by his widow, Amy Consuelo Triviere and its counsel. The LCN Construction, as the only remaining claimant against the Intestate Estate of the Late Raymond Triviere filed its Comment on/Opposition to the Motion of payment filed by counsel of petitioner, and argued that RTC had already resolved the issue of payment of litigation expenses when it denied the first Motion for Payment filed by the counsel for petitioner for failure of the administrators to submit an accounting of the assets and expenses of the estate as required by the court. It also averred that claims are still outstanding and chargeable against the estate of the late Raymond Triviere; thus, no distribution should be allowed until they have been paid. The RTC issued its Order taking note that "the widow and the heirs of the deceased Triviere, after all the years, have not received their respective share in the Estate." The RTC declared that there was no more need for accounting of the assets and liabilities of the estate. LCN sought recourse from the Court of Appeals and promulgated a Decision ruling in favor of LCN. 

Issue: 

1. WON the award in favor of the heirs of the late Raymond Triviere is already a distribution of the residue of the estate - YES 

Held: 

1. While the awards in favor of petitioner children and widow made in the RTC Order dated 12 June 2003 was not yet a distribution of the residue of the estate, given that there was still a pending claim against the estate, still, they did constitute a partial and advance distribution of the estate. Virtually, the petitioner children and widow were already being awarded shares in the estate, although not all of its obligations had been paid or provided for. 

In sum, although it is within the discretion of the RTC whether or not to permit the advance distribution of the estate, its exercise of such discretion should be qualified by the following: [1] only part of the estate that is not affected by any pending controversy or appeal may be the subject of advance distribution (Section 2, Rule 109); and [2] the distributees must post a bond, fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of outstanding obligations of the estate (second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 90).There is no showing that the RTC, in awarding to the petitioner children and widow their shares in the estate prior to the settlement of all its obligations, complied with these two requirements or, at the very least, took the same into consideration. Its Order of 12 June 2003 is completely silent on these matters. It justified its grant of the award in a single sentence which stated that petitioner children and widow had not yet received their respective shares from the estate after all these years.