Lee gives another dimension to the right of an heir to dispose properties forming part of the inheri-tance, pending judicial settlement proceedings. In this case, the dispositions made by the two heirs relate to

specific properties which have not been finally adjudicated by the intestate court. There were also claims made by 5 illegitimate children which have not been acted upon. But more importantly, in this case the legitimate family executed a deed of extra judicial partition, to the exclusion of the ille-gitimate children, pursuant to which they divided the estate of the decedent amongst themselves. And this deed of extra judicial partition was executed while the intestate proceedings remain pend-ing in court.

The decision in Lee is consistent with the law. However, Court omitted to state a very important reason why no heir can sell any specific property of the estate prior to the final settlement of the es-tate without court approval. The reason is that prior to the partition of the estate among the heirs, all of the heirs are co-owners of the inheritance, each having an ideal or pro indiviso share therein. This co-ownership prevents any heir from alienating a specific property without court approval, because all other co-heirs have an interest in each of the specific property of the estate. It is only upon the partition of the estate that each of the heirs may probably acquire absolute title to specific proper-ties.

One wonders if the Court could have allowed the sale in Lee, but subject to the outcome of parti-tion. After all, the hereditary estate is transmitted to the heirs from the moment of the death of the decedent. Nonetheless, it is worth remembering that the transmission of the estate to the heirs prior to partition is a transmission of aliquot shares, not a transmission of specific property. Thus, where an heir disposes a specific property for his own benefit, such disposition unjustly deprives the other co-heirs of their undivided interest in the thing alienated.

Note too the tactical move of Jose Ortañez in seeking the removal of the Special Administratrix En-deres, his illegitimate half- sister. By disposing the shares over which Enderes as administration, he claimed that the appointment has become moot and academic. But the precise reason why such ad-ministration became irrelevant was his own unauthorized and surreptitious act of disposing the property subject of administration without court approval. Such machination constitutes a contemp-tuous act as it sought to indirectly frustrate the court’s directive to put Special Administratrix En-deres in charge of the Philinterlife shares.

HEIRS OF SPOUSES REMEDIOS R. SANDEJAS AND ELIODORO P. SANDEJAS SR. v LINA

G.R. No. 141634, 5 February 2001

351 SCRA 183

In this case, Justice Panganiban correctly classified the transaction between Buyer and Seller as a conditional sale, thereby correcting the CA’s findings that the transaction was a contract to sell. Jus-tice Panganiban correctly distinguished between a contract to sell (wherein the transaction is subject to the positive suspensive condition that the buyer will deliver the purchase price) from a condi-tional sale (wherein the obligation of the seller to execute the deed of sale is conditioned upon the procurement of the approval of the intestate court). Thus, when the intestate court approved the sale of the property, the condition of the sale was fulfilled and the Seller and the Buyer are obligated to perform their respective obligations under the contract.

As to the scope of the property that must be sold, Justice Panganiban correctly ruled that the sale can only cover the undivided 2 interest of Eliodoro to the extent of his 1⁄2 conjugal share, and his

1/10 share as an intestate heir of Remedios. Therefore, the obligation of the Administrator is to sell to Alex A. Lina 1⁄2 + 1/10 of the property or 3/5 thereof – undivided share.

The Court reiterates the basic rule that an heir may sell his ideal share of the inheritance. Court ap-proval is not necessary before the heir could sell. Judicial approval cannot adversely affect the sub-stantive right of the heir to dispose his own pro indiviso share in the co-heirship or co-ownership.

As to the sale of the entire property to the buyer, Justice Panganiban correctly ruled that the pro-in-diviso shares of the non-selling heirs should be excluded from the sale. Hence the transaction be-tween Eliodoro Sandejas Sr. and Alex Lina cannot extend beyond Eliodoro’s undivided interest in the property.