TITLE: FELIX BAUTISTA VS.

AQUILINA TIONGSON
CITATION: 11 PHIL 579 NOVEMBER 7, 1908

FACTS: Felix Bautista, administrator of the intestate estate of Ciriaco Tiongson, alleged that the deceased
and Aquilina Tiongson, were the owners pro indiviso of five parcels of land located in the Province of
Bulacan. One-half of the said land appertained to said intestate estate, and the other half to the
defendant, Aquilina Tiongson. The latter and her husband were the only parties who had administered
the aforesaid property, having collected the rentals thereof without rendering an accounting of their
administration to anyone. Bautista prayed to the court to order that the same be partitioned in
accordance with the law, and that the defendants be instructed to render an accounting of their
administration and deliver the balance to the plaintiff. But such allegations were denied by the defendants
saying that the only land held jointly by the deceased and Aquilina Tiongson was the lot located in the
town of Baliuag, while the other 4 lots were owned exclusively by the defendants who had purchased the
same from the late Ciriaco Tiongson. They also averred that Ciriaco Tiongson, while living, together with
the defendants, administered the undivided lands, and that, after his death, his widow, Marciana de
Zulueta, as the administratrix of the property of her seven minor children, received that portion of the
crops from the land in Baliuag belonging to the intestate estate until the year 1903

Defendants alleged that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to bring this action because the legal
administration of the property of the late Ciriaco Tiongson, pertained to his widow who lived with her
minor children, acting on behalf of the latter. Moreso, the rentals received by the widow of Ciriaco, on
several occasions, took from the defendants, on account of the rentals of the said land, the sum of
P1,402.45 pesos, and that the deceased, before his death, personally owed the defendants the sum of
143,75 pesos. Hence, defendants prayed that the appointment of the administrator of the intestate estate
of Ciriaco Tiongson, be annulled, and that the complaint be dismissed entirely.

ISSUES:

1. Is the administrator authorized to bring an action to demand partition of the subject lots?
2. Was the demand of rendering accounts proper?

RULING:

1. NO.

An action to enforce the partition of real estate must be brought and proceeded with in accordance
with the provisions of sections 181 to 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The law refers to a coparcener, coheir, or other person interested in the undivided property held,
because any one of such persons is a real party concerned in the partition. In cases like the present,
where the property is held by a person, not as a coheir but as the exclusive owner, the right of action
for partition, which supposes joint ownership or community of property, pertains only to the heirs of
the late Ciriaco Tiongson, not to the administrator who, when claiming the division of real estate not
included in the inventory, or which he did not take charge of on commencing to exercise office, but
which is alleged to belong to the estate, is not authorized to represent the intestate succession of the
property administered by him; neither is he authorized to represent the heirs, because the latter, as
successors to the deceased, are the only parties who may maintain such an action for partition of real
estate held pro indiviso by coheirs or owners in common.

2. NO.

With regard to the rendering of accounts, the demand presupposes that the action for partition
brought by the administrator was in accordance with the law and that the same could be granted by
the court below. Once the latter is dismissed, it follows that the former should likewise be denied.