Short answer. No. Rule 74 says plainly that no extrajudicial settlement binds anyone who did not participate in it or had no notice of it. A relative who was left out — whether deliberately or by oversight — keeps the right to challenge the settlement and claim his or her rightful share of the estate.
What the law says
no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof
Rule 74, Section 1 — Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. Read the full provision →
The rule that protects an excluded heir
Rule 74, Section 1 states the protection directly: no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. An extrajudicial settlement is meant to be an agreement between the heirs — if one heir was never brought into that agreement, or never even told it was happening, the document does not bind that heir merely because everyone else signed it. Their share of the estate remains open to be claimed.
What lets heirs settle an estate this way at all
This shortcut is only available when the decedent left no will and no debts, and the heirs are all of age or the minors among them are represented by a duly authorized legal representative. On those conditions, the heirs may divide the estate among themselves by a public instrument filed with the register of deeds, without going through court administration proceedings. A single heir may likewise adjudicate the entire estate to himself by affidavit. Every one of these routes still depends on every heir either taking part or being properly represented.
The bond, and why debts do not simply vanish
Whoever files the settlement, or the sole heir who adjudicates the estate by affidavit, must simultaneously post a bond with the register of deeds equal to the value of the personal property involved, to answer for any just claim later filed against the estate. The rule also allows a presumption that the decedent left no debts if no creditor petitions for letters of administration within two years of death — but that presumption concerns creditors, not the separate protection given to an heir who was excluded.
Publication is not a substitute for actually including an heir
The settlement's existence must also be published in a newspaper of general circulation. Publication puts the wider public and unknown creditors on notice, but the rule keeps its own excluded-heir protection standing right alongside that publication requirement: a relative who genuinely had no participation and no notice is not bound, whether or not the settlement was published. A newspaper notice they never saw does not by itself convert them into a party to the agreement.