Short answer. Generally no, not yet. Rule 87, Section 3 of the Rules of Court bars an heir or devisee from suing the administrator to recover title or possession of estate land until the court assigns that land to the heir, or until the time allowed for paying the estate's debts has expired.
What the law says
no action to recover the title or possession of lands or for damages done to such lands shall be maintained against him by an heir or devisee
Rule 87, Section 3 — Heir may not sue until share assigned. Read the full provision →
What the law says
until there is an order of the court assigning such lands to such heir or devisee or until the time allowed for paying debts has expired
Rule 87, Section 3 — Heir may not sue until share assigned. Read the full provision →
What the bar covers
Once an executor or administrator is appointed and assumes the trust, the rule steps in: no action to recover the title or possession of lands or for damages done to such lands shall be maintained against him by an heir or devisee. The bar is specific in every direction. It applies to suits by heirs and devisees, over lands of the estate, brought against the administrator or executor, seeking title, possession or damages to the land. It reflects how settlement works: while administration is pending, the administrator holds the estate's property to pay debts and expenses first. An heir's share is whatever remains, and until that remainder is fixed, the heir has nothing specific to recover.
When the heir may sue
The prohibition is temporary, and the rule itself names the two events that lift it: until there is an order of the court assigning such lands to such heir or devisee or until the time allowed for paying debts has expired. The first is the cleanest path — a court order in the settlement proceeding assigning the particular land to the heir, after which the heir sues over property that is now identifiably theirs. The second is the passage of the period the court allowed for paying the estate's debts. Either event ends the administrator's justification for exclusive possession, and with it the shield against the heir's action.
The remedy in the meantime is inside the estate case
The assumption many heirs arrive with is that being an heir means being an owner who can eject anyone, including the administrator. Rule 87, Section 3 corrects that: during administration, complaints about how estate land is held or managed belong inside the settlement proceeding, addressed to the probate court supervising the administrator — not in a separate recovery suit filed against him. An heir who believes the administrator is mishandling property is not without recourse; the recourse is simply to ask the court that appointed the administrator to act, rather than to open a second front in another court.
What to establish before acting
Two documents largely settle where you stand. First, the order appointing the executor or administrator, because the bar operates only once one is appointed and assumes the trust. Second, any order of the probate court assigning the land — or the order fixing the time for paying debts, so you can tell whether it has expired. If neither lifting event has happened, the productive move is a motion or opposition within the estate case, not an independent action. If one has, a lawyer can assess a recovery suit over the land now assigned to you, with the assignment order as its foundation.