This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the subprovince of Marinduque, Province  of Tayabas, the  Hon. J. S. Powell  presiding,  awarding the possession of  the lands  described in the  complaint to the plaintiff, with costs.

The action  is brought by Simon Malahacan as administrator of  the goods, chattels, and  credits of Guillerma Martinez, deceased, against the defendants, the only heirs at law of the said deceased, to recover possession of the real estate of which the said Guillerma Martinez died  seized, which said real estate the defendants had been occupying for some years before the commencement of this action.

Under the provisions of the Civil Code  the ownership  of real estate passes to the heirs of the owner instantly on his death.   Guillerma Martinez, having died seized of the lands involved in this suit, leaving the defendants as her only heirs at law, it follows that said heirs instantly became the owners and were entitled to the immediate possession thereof.   It is not alleged  in the complaint nor does it appear from the record or the  evidence in this case that  there were debts outstanding against Guillerma Martinez at the time of her death.   The only ground upon which an administrator can demand of the heirs at law possession of  the real estate  of which his intestate died seized is that such land will  be required to  be sold to pay the debts of the  deceased.   In the case of  Ilustre, administrator of the  estate of the deceased Calzado, vs. Alaras Frondosa  (17  Phil. Rep., 321), this court said:

"Under the  provisions of the Civil Code (arts. 657-661), the rights to the succession of a person are  transmitted from the moment of his death; in other words, the heirs succeed immediately to all of the property of the deceased ancestor. The property belongs to  the  heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to them a deed for the same before his death.  In the  absence of debts existing  against the estate, the heirs may enter upon the administration of the said property immediately.  If they desire to administer it jointly, they may do so.  If they desire to partition it among themselves and can do this by mutual agreement, they also have that privilege.   The Code of Procedure in Civil Actions provides how an estate may be divided by  a petition for partition in case they can not mutually agree in the division. When there are no  debts existing  against the estate, there is certainly no occasion for the intervention of an administrator  in the settlement and partition of the estate among the heirs.  When the heirs are all of lawful  age and there are no debts,  there is no reason why the  estate should be burdened with the costs and expenses of an  administrator. The property belonging absolutely to the heirs, in the absence of existing debts against the estate, the administrator has no right to intervene in any way whatever in the  division of the estate among the heirs.  They are co-owners of an undivided estate  and the law  offers them a remedy  for the  division of the same among themselves.  There is nothing in the present case to show  that the heirs requested the appointment of  the administrator, or that they intervened in any way whatever in the present action.  If there are any heirs of the estate who have not received their participation, they have their remedy  by petition for partition of  the  said estate."

The  judgment appealed from is reversed  and the complaint  dismissed on the merits, without special finding as to costs.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.