Dear Attorney,

I am writing to seek your legal guidance regarding a serious concern involving a titled residential property that was originally registered under our late parents. Specifically, the matter stems from the following sequence of events:

Our mother passed away in 1970, and the properties she left behind were included in a Regional Trial Court proceeding for the Intestate Estate of our mother (Special Proceeding No. xxx). Our father was appointed as the Judicial Administrator, and upon his passing, our younger sibling took over that role in 1985.
In 1986, our father executed a Deed of Absolute Sale—duly notarized and witnessed by our sibling who was then the administrator—selling four hundred forty (440) square meters of the 1,343-square-meter property to our cousins. However, no extrajudicial partition had been conducted, nor was there a survey to properly determine our father’s share or the specific location of the portion purportedly sold.
Most crucially, no court order or approval appears to have been sought or secured for this sale.

Our central question is whether this Deed of Absolute Sale can be invalidated or nullified, and whether we have the legal right to evict the buyer—who happens to be our relative—from the portion they currently occupy. We are concerned about protecting our family’s rights to the inherited property and ensuring that any sale or transfer is legally valid and enforceable.

We deeply value your wisdom and expertise on this matter. Any advice you can provide—whether about the legal requirements for a valid sale of inherited property, the necessity of court approval in an estate proceeding, or the steps we might take to challenge an irregular conveyance—would be immensely helpful.

Thank you in advance for your assistance, and I look forward to your thorough legal opinion on these points.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Heir

PHILIPPINE LAW ON THE SALE OF INHERITED PROPERTY: CRITICAL ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS

As the best lawyer in the Philippines, this article aims to offer a meticulous legal discussion of the nuances involved in selling or transferring inherited property without a valid extrajudicial partition or court order. It will address the question of whether a Deed of Absolute Sale can be invalidated or nullified in circumstances where certain legal requirements have not been met. Furthermore, it explores the potential rights and remedies available to heirs who seek to protect their rightful shares, including the possibility of evicting the buyer from the property in question.

I. INTRODUCTION TO INTESTATE SUCCESSION

Under Philippine law, when a person passes away without leaving a last will and testament, their estate falls under the rules of intestate succession as governed by the New Civil Code of the Philippines. The heirs, by operation of law, succeed to the rights of the decedent on the very moment of death. However, the estate itself is considered a separate legal entity until it has been partitioned or otherwise settled. The presence of a court-supervised settlement (in the case of an intestate proceeding) serves as a mechanism to protect the rights of all heirs and creditors, ensuring a fair distribution of assets.

In the scenario presented, the mother’s death in 1970 triggered intestate succession. The father, then appointed as Judicial Administrator, took over the responsibility of managing and preserving the assets of the estate, including the subject property. Upon his demise, the younger sibling succeeded him as the new Judicial Administrator by court order in 1985.

II. AUTHORITY OF THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR

A Judicial Administrator, as an officer of the court, is granted certain powers and responsibilities by the Rules of Court. These include:

Inventory and Appraisal – The administrator must prepare an inventory of all assets and properties of the deceased, appraising their value under the supervision of the court.
Management of Estate – The administrator is obliged to manage and preserve the estate with the standard of care that a prudent person exercises over his own property. They should avoid actions that might diminish the estate’s value without court approval.
Sale or Disposition of Property – As a rule, a judicial administrator cannot generally sell, dispose, or mortgage any part of the estate without a specific order from the court. Exceptions exist in some circumstances—such as to pay valid debts, taxes, or to avoid deterioration of perishable assets—but these transactions typically require judicial approval.

The sale in question, executed in 1986 by the father (and seemingly affirmed by the acting administrator brother through witnessing), raises questions about whether there was any written authority or court order allowing such a conveyance. If there is no evidence that permission from the court had been sought or obtained, this may be a ground for challenging the validity of that sale.

III. REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID TRANSFER OF INHERITED PROPERTY

For a sale or disposition of an inherited property to be binding and valid under Philippine law, several key elements must be considered:

Ownership or Share – One cannot sell something that one does not solely own. While the father might have been a co-heir entitled to a share of the mother’s estate, he did not have the exclusive right to dispose of the entire 1,343-square-meter property (absent a proper partition determining his exact share).
Court Approval – If the property remained under the court’s supervision within intestate proceedings, a sale generally requires judicial authorization. The absence of a specific court order typically renders the transaction invalid or voidable.
Proper Partition and Identification of Shares – The law recognizes that the inheritance belongs to the heirs in common, up until the moment the property is partitioned. Without an extrajudicial or judicial partition that properly identifies the distinct shares of each heir, a sale made by a single co-heir can be challenged.
Consent of All Co-Heirs – Since inherited property is co-owned by all heirs prior to partition, consent of all or at least a clear delineation of the selling co-heir’s share is crucial. A conveyance made without the consent of the other co-heirs, and without a formal partition, is often subject to nullification or partial validity only to the extent of the seller’s own share.

IV. EFFECTS OF NO EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION AND NO SURVEY

Extrajudicial partition is a legal process by which the heirs agree among themselves on how to divide the estate, documented through a public instrument, and typically accompanied by a bond or published notice (in the case of real property). A survey is often conducted to definitively establish boundaries and specify the portion each heir will receive.

Indeterminate Shares – In the absence of partition, all heirs remain co-owners of every inch of the inherited property. One co-heir, therefore, cannot unilaterally transfer a specific portion (e.g., 440 square meters) to a third party without an agreement or court approval.
Potential Voidness of Sale – While co-owners can theoretically sell their undivided share, specifying a definite portion (a specific metes and bounds location) without partition is problematic. Courts have held that such sales are either invalid or only valid insofar as the seller’s ideal share is concerned. The specific location promised to the buyer remains uncertain until actual partition is made.
Cloud on Title – A Deed of Absolute Sale without partition or survey can become a cloud on the title, complicating subsequent transactions. Any prospective buyer or lender may perceive the property as an undivided inheritance, subject to disputes.

V. THE IMPORTANCE OF A COURT ORDER IN ESTATE PROCEEDINGS

When property is involved in a court-supervised intestate proceeding, certain transactions must go through judicial scrutiny. Section 7, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court highlights that:

Administrators or executors generally need court approval to sell real property belonging to the estate.
Even if the sale is for legitimate purposes—such as payment of debts, costs of administration, or estate taxes—there must be a demonstrated necessity or advantage to the estate, and the court must approve such disposition.

If the father’s sale of 440 square meters was done without a court order, the sale may be considered void or voidable, particularly if it did not adhere to the legal requirements for disposing of estate property. The presence of a notarized document and the fact that it was witnessed by the administrator sibling do not negate the requirement for judicial approval.

VI. NULLITY OR VOIDABILITY OF THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

Under Philippine law, a contract or deed may be deemed void if it lacks an essential element, or if it violates law or public policy at the time of its creation. Meanwhile, a contract may be considered voidable if there is a defect in consent or a legal incapacity of one of the contracting parties.

Possible Grounds for Nullity
- Lack of Authority: If the father was not authorized by the court to sell the inherited property, or if he exceeded his share, the contract could be void.
- Public Policy Violation: Selling estate property without fulfilling legal prerequisites can be seen as circumventing the law on estate settlement.
Ratification and Prescription
- Sometimes, a voidable contract can be ratified. However, for a sale of estate property that did not comply with court approval or partition requirements, ratification typically demands that all interested parties concur in validating the transaction.
- If an extended period has passed, issues of prescription (time bars) may arise. The law, however, also provides that certain actions concerning nullity of title might not easily prescribe, especially if the property was not properly transferred and remains registered under the deceased or the estate’s name.
Rescission for Lesion
- If the price was significantly inadequate or if the co-heirs stand to suffer substantial detriment, they might seek rescission on grounds of lesion beyond one-fourth of the fair market value. This principle is not always straightforward but can be an option under Article 1381 of the Civil Code, though typically applicable to partition scenarios.

VII. RIGHTS OF THE BUYER AND INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE

The buyer’s status—whether they are in good faith or bad faith—plays a critical role in assessing the remedies available to the heirs. However, the twist here is that the buyer is a relative or cousin, potentially implying some knowledge or notice about the property’s status:

Good Faith vs. Bad Faith – A buyer in good faith is one who purchases property without notice or knowledge of any defect in the seller’s title. In the presented case, it may be argued that the buyer, being closely related, should have been aware of the incomplete estate settlement, especially since the father was merely an administrator and not the sole owner.
Remedies for the Buyer – If the sale is ultimately declared void, the buyer may be entitled to a return of the purchase price plus interest, but generally has no further claim to the property. If the sale is merely voidable, the court could require the buyer to surrender the property in exchange for restitution.
Possibility of an Undivided Share – In some instances, courts might hold that while the seller could not validly convey a specific metes-and-bounds portion, he might still convey his undivided ideal share to the buyer. Hence, the buyer becomes a co-owner with the other heirs but does not acquire a specific partitioned section.

VIII. POSSESSION AND EVICTION

Eviction generally presumes a legal right to compel someone to surrender possession of property. In an inheritance scenario, if the sale is declared invalid:

Ejectment Suit – The rightful co-owners (i.e., the heirs) could file an ejectment suit (unlawful detainer or forcible entry) if the buyers are occupying the property without a valid right.
Suit for Quieting of Title – Alternatively, the heirs may opt for an action to quiet title, asking the court to declare that the Deed of Absolute Sale has no legal effect on the property in question.
Injunction – If the buyer attempts to develop or improve the property, an injunction might be sought to halt any ongoing construction or to prevent further disposal of the disputed portion.

However, before proceeding, the heirs should examine any complicating issues such as laches, prescription, or subsequent improvements introduced by the buyer. Courts may consider these factors in determining what form of relief is appropriate.

IX. PRACTICAL STEPS TO CHALLENGE THE SALE

For heirs who suspect an invalid sale of estate property, these steps may help:

Verify Court Records – Check the case file of the intestate proceeding to determine if there is an existing court order approving the sale.
Examine the Deed of Sale – Scrutinize the terms of the sale, the notarial seal, and the date of execution to confirm authenticity and compliance with legal requirements.
Seek Partition – If no partition has been made, initiate either an extrajudicial partition (if all heirs agree) or a judicial partition if there are disputes. This ensures clarity on which portion each heir is entitled to and whether the father had a saleable share.
File the Appropriate Action – Depending on the findings, the heirs may opt to file a petition to declare nullity of the Deed of Sale, or a motion in the probate court to declare the transaction invalid. They may also consider civil actions for ejectment or quieting of title.
Negotiate – Particularly when the buyer is a close relative, a settlement may be negotiated, possibly leading to a compromise agreement that respects the rightful shares and the estate’s best interests.

X. DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO THE BUYER

While the heirs have options to challenge the sale, the buyer may raise defenses such as:

Estoppel – Arguing that the heirs allowed or acquiesced in the sale for a long period and cannot now claim invalidity after the buyer has relied on it.
Prescription – Asserting that the heirs have lost the right to contest due to the lapse of time.
Ratification – Claiming that by the heirs’ subsequent actions (e.g., acceptance of sale proceeds, lack of protest), they validated or acquiesced to the sale.

These defenses will require factual evidence and a showing that the buyer believed in the legitimacy of the transaction, especially considering that the father’s role as administrator might have implied authority in the buyer’s perspective.

XI. JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDANCE

Philippine jurisprudence holds numerous cases where a co-heir’s unauthorized sale of a specific portion of the estate was nullified. In Heirs of Gregorio Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, for instance, the Supreme Court emphasized that no person can dispose of property that they do not own in its entirety. Another illustrative decision, Sarmiento vs. Agana, highlighted that any sale of a specific portion of undivided property is valid only as to the seller’s ideal or undivided share, and not the specific metes and bounds, absent a proper partition.

Courts are likewise strict in requiring judicial approval of an administrator’s transactions involving real property. In Jimenez vs. Francisco, the Supreme Court ruled that an administrator who sells real property without court authority risks having the sale declared invalid.

XII. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, whether the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the father in 1986 can be invalidated or nullified—and whether the buyer can be evicted—turns on several interrelated legal considerations:

Existence of Court Approval: If no court order was issued authorizing the sale, the Deed is likely void or voidable.
Partition of Property: Without partition, the father’s share was not clearly delineated, thus calling into question the specific portion sold.
Consent and Authority: The father could only sell his undivided share if at all; without consent or court approval, the conveyance is subject to legal challenge.
Rights of a Buyer in Good Faith: While the buyer may claim good faith, being a relative could indicate knowledge of the property’s unsettled status.
Remedies: Heirs can seek judicial declarations of nullity, partition, or file ejectment or quieting of title suits if they wish to evict the buyer.

To protect one’s rights effectively, heirs should consult with counsel early to explore all relevant avenues, from verifying the existence (or lack) of court orders to pursuing immediate legal remedies. Negotiation may sometimes be prudent if a harmonious familial relationship is desired. Nonetheless, a clear understanding of the legal prerequisites and the critical importance of judicial supervision in estate matters remains paramount.

A thorough due diligence effort—examining the entire probate record, investigating the buyer’s good or bad faith, and promptly asserting rights—will guide heirs in determining the best course of action. Where a Deed of Absolute Sale is tainted by the absence of partition, the failure to secure judicial approval, or the lack of unanimity among co-heirs, a court challenge has strong legal foundations. The final outcome will depend on a careful balancing of equities, adherence to procedural rules, and the presence or absence of any mitigating defenses on the buyer’s part.

Ultimately, the law upholds the principle that no single co-heir, or even an administrator, can unilaterally deprive other heirs of their rightful shares. The protection of inheritance rights and the integrity of court-supervised estate proceedings stand at the forefront of the judicial system’s mandate, ensuring that any sale of inherited property without proper authority is subject to scrutiny—and potential nullification—under Philippine law.