Guilas v. CFI (1972).pdf

3/22/2015 ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/22835 1/6

150Phil.138

[G.R.No.L26695,January31,1972]

JUANITALOPEZGUILAS,PETITIONER,VS.JUDGEOFTHECOURTOFFIRSTINSTANCEOFPAMPANGAANDALEJANDRO

LOPEZ,RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

MAKASIAR,J.:

It appears from the records that Jacinta Limson de Lopez, of Guagua,PampangawasmarriedtoAlejandroLopezySiongco.Theyhadnochildren.

OnApril28,1936,JacintaexecutedawillinstitutingherhusbandAlejandroashersoleheirandexecutor(pp.2021,rec.).

In a Resolution dated October 26, 1953 in Sp. Proc. No. 894 entitled "En elAsuntode laAdopcionde laMenor Juanita Lopezy Limson" (pp.9294,103,rec.),hereinpetitionerJuanitaLopez,thensingleandnowmarriedtoFedericoGuilas, was declared legally adopted daughter and legal heir of the spousesJacintaandAlejandro. After adopting legallyhereinpetitioner Juanita Lopez,the testatrix Doa Jacinta did not execute another will or codicil so as toincludeJuanitaLopezasoneofherheirs.

In an order dated March 5, 1959 in Testate Proceedings No. 1426, theaforementioned will was admitted to probate and the surviving husband,AlejandroLopezySiongco,wasappointedexecutorwithoutbondbytheCourtof First Instance of Pampanga (Annexes "A" and "B", pp. 1823, rec.).Accordingly, Alejandro took his oath of office as executor (Annex "C", p. 24,rec.).

Nevertheless,inaprojectofpartitiondatedMarch19,1960executedbybothAlejandroLopezandJuanitaLopezGuilas,therightofJuanitaLopeztoinheritfrom Jacinta was recognized and Lots Nos. 3368 and 3441 (Jacinta'sparaphernal property), described and embraced inOriginal Certificate of TitleNo. 13092, both situated in Bacolor, Pampanga Lot 3368 with an area of68,141 squaremeters and Lot 3441with an area of 163,231 squaremeters,thenassessedrespectivelyatP3,070.00andP5,800.00(Annex"D",pp.2736,rec.) were adjudicated to Juanita LopezGuilas as her share free from allliens, encumbrances and charges, with the executor Alejandro Lopez bindinghimself to free the said two parcels from such liens, encumbrances andcharges.Therestoftheestateofthedeceasedconsistingof28otherparcelsoflandswithatotalassessedvaluationofP69,020.00andacombinedareaof



743,924.67 square meters, as well as personal properties including a 1953BuickcarvaluedatP2,500.00,wereallottedtoDonAlejandrowhoassumedallthemortgageliensontheestate(Annex"D",pp.2537,rec.).

InanorderdatedApril23,1960,thelowercourtapprovedthesaidprojectofpartitionanddirectedthattherecordsofthecasebesenttothearchives,uponpaymentoftheestateandinheritancetaxes(Annex"E",p.38,rec.).

UponexpartepetitionoftheadjudicateesAlejandroLopezandJuanitaLopezGuilas dated August 25, 1961 (Annex "F", pp. 3940.), the lower court in anorder dated August 28, 1961, approved the correction of clerical errorsappearingintheprojectofpartition(Annex"G",p.41,rec.).

On April 10, 1964, herein petitioner Juanita LopezGuilas filed a separateordinaryactiontosetasideandannultheprojectofpartition,whichcasewasdocketedasCivilCase2539entitled"JuanitaLopezGuilasvs.AlejandroLopez"intheCourtofFirstInstanceofPampanga,onthegroundoflesion,preteritionand fraud, and pray further that Alejandro Lopez be ordered to submit astatement of accounts of all the crops and to deliver immediately to Juanitalotsnos.3368and3441oftheBacolorCadastre,whichwereallocatedtoherundertheprojectofpartition(p.132,rec.).

Meanwhile,inTestateProceedingsNo.1426,JuanitafiledapetitiondatedJuly20,1964prayingthatAlejandroLopezbedirectedtodelivertohertheactualpossessionofsaidlotsnos.3368and3441aswellasthe1,216cavansofpalaythat he collected from the ten (10) tenants or lessees of the said two lots(Annex"H",pp.4244,rec.).

In his opposition dated August 5, 1964 to the said petition, Alejandro Lopezclaims that, by virtue of the order dated April 23, 1960 which approved theprojectofpartitionsubmittedbybothAlejandroandJuanitaanddirectedthattherecordsofthecasebearchiveduponpaymentoftheestateandinheritancetaxes, and the order of December 15, 1960 which "ordered closed andterminatedthepresentcase,"thetestateproceedingshadalreadybeenclosedand terminatedand thatheceasedasa consequence tobe theexecutorofthe estate of the deceased and that Juanita Lopez is guilty of laches andnegligenceinfilingthepetitionofthedeliveryofhershare4yearsaftersuchclosureoftheestate,whenshecouldhavefiledapetitionforreliefofjudgmentwithinsixty(60)daysfromDecember15,1960underRule38oftheoldRulesofCourt(Annex"I")citingA.Austriavs.HeirsofAntonioVentenilla,L10018,Sept.19,1956(pp.4548,rec.).

InherreplydatedNovember17,1965tosaidopposition,Juanitacontendsthattheactualdeliveryanddistributionof thehereditaryshares to theheirs,andnottheorderofthecourtdeclaringasclosedandterminatedtheproceedings,



determinestheterminationoftheprobateproceedings(citingIntestateestateof thedeceasedMercedesCano,Timbolvs.Cano,59O.G.No.30,pp.4637,April29,1961,whereitwasruledthat"theprobatecourt losesjurisdictionofan estate under administration only after the payment of all the taxes, andafter the remaining estate is delivered to the heirs entitled to receive thesame") that the executor Alejandro is estopped from opposing her petitionbecausehewastheonewhoprepared,filedandsecuredcourtapprovalof,theaforesaidprojectofpartition,whichsheseekstobeimplementedthatsheisnotguiltyof laches,becausewhenshefiledonJuly20,1964,herpetitionforthe delivery of her share allocated to her under the project of partition, lessthan3yearshadelapsedfromAugust28,1961whentheamendedprojectofpartitionwasapproved,which iswithinthe5yearperiodfortheexecutionofjudgmentbymotion(Annex"J",pp.4952,rec.).

In its order datedOctober 2, 1964, the lower court after a "pretrial" statedthatbecausethecivilactionfortheannulmentoftheprojectofpartitionwasfiled on April 13, 1964, before the filing on July 2, 1964 of the petition fordeliveryof the sharesof Juanita Lopez, "thepartieshaveagreed to suspendactionorresolutionuponthesaidpetitionforthedeliveryofsharesuntilafterthe civil action aforementioned has been finally settled and decided," andforthwith set the civil action for annulment for trial on November 25, andDecember2,1964(Annex"K",pp.5354,rec.).

OnJune11,1965,Juanitafiledanamendedcomplaint inCivilCase2539(pp.78110, rec.),wheresheacknowledges thepartial legalityandvalidityof theprojectofpartitioninsofarastheallocationinherfavoroftheLotsNos.3368and3441,thedeliveryofwhichsheisseeking(pp.106107,rec.).

InhermotiondatedNovember17,1965,JuanitasoughtthesettingasideoftheorderdatedOctober2,1964onthegroundthatwhilethesaidorderconsideredheractionforannulmentoftheprojectofpartitionasaprejudicialquestion,herfilinganamendedcomplainton June11,1965 in civil caseNo.2539whereinshe admitted the partial legality and validity of the project of partition withrespecttotheadjudicationtoherof thetwo lotsashershare,renderedsaidcivilcaseNo.2539no longeraprejudicialquestiontoherpetitionofJuly20,1964forthedeliveryofhershare(Annex"L",pp.5559,rec.).

AlejandrofiledhisoppositiondatedDecember1,1965totheaforesaidmotionofJuanitatosetasidetheorderdatedOctober2,1964(Annex"M",pp.6061,rec.),towhichJuanitafiledherrejoinderdatedDecember6,1965whereinshestated among others that pursuant to the project of partition, executorAlejandrosecuredthecancellationofOCTNo.13093coveringthetwoparcelsoflandadjudicatedtoherundertheprojectofpartitionandtheissuanceinhisexclusivenameonAugust4,1961TCTNo.26638RcoveringthesaidLotsNos.3368and3441oftheBacolorCadastre(Annex"N",pp.6271,rec.).

InanorderdatedApril27,1966,thelowercourtdeniedJuanita'smotiontoset



asidetheorderofOctober2,1964onthegroundthatthepartiesthemselvesagreedtosuspendresolutionofherpetitionforthedeliveryofhersharesuntilafter thecivilaction forannulmentof theprojectofpartitionhasbeen finallysettledanddecided(Annex"O",p.72,rec.).

Juanita filedamotiondatedMay9,1966 for the reconsiderationof theorderdatedApril27,1966(Annex"P",pp.7377, rec.), towhichAlejandro filedanoppositiondatedJune8,1966(Annex"Q",pp.112113,rec.).

Subsequently, Alejandro filed amotion dated July 25, 1966 praying that thepalaydepositedwithFericsonsandIdealRiceMillbytheten(10)tenantsofthetwoparcelsinquestionbedeliveredtohim(Annex"R",pp.114116,rec.),towhichJuanitafiledanoppositiondatedJuly26,1966(Annex"S",pp.117121,rec.).

In an order datedSeptember 8, 1966, the lower court denied themotion forreconsiderationof theorderdatedApril 27,1966,anddirectedFericsons Inc.and the Ideal RiceMills to deliver toAlejandro or his representative the 229cavansand46kilosand325and1/2cavansand23kilosofpalayrespectivelydepositedwiththesaidricemillsuponthefilingbyAlejandroofabondintheamount of P12,000.00 duly approved by the court (Annex "T", pp. 122127,rec.).

Hence,thispetitionforcertiorariandmandamus.

The position of petitioner Juanita LopezGuilas should be sustained and thewritsprayedforgranted.

Theprobatecourtlosesjurisdictionofanestateunderadministrationonlyafterthepaymentof all thedebtsand the remainingestatedelivered to theheirsentitled to receive the same. The finality of the approval of the project ofpartitionbyitselfalonedoesnotterminatetheprobateproceeding(Timbolvs.Cano,1SCRA1271,1276, L15445,April 29,1961Siguiongvs. Tecson, 89Phil.,pp.2830).Aslongastheorderofthedistributionoftheestatehasnotbeen complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed andterminated (Siguiong vs. Tecson, supra.) because a judicial partition is notfinalandconclusiveanddoesnotprevent theheir frombringinganaction toobtainhisshare,providedtheprescriptiveperiodthereforhasnotelapsed(Marivs.Bonilla,83Phil.,137).Thebetterpractice,however,fortheheirwhohasnotreceivedhisshare,istodemandhissharethroughapropermotioninthesameprobateoradministrationproceedings,orforreopeningoftheprobateoradministrative proceedings if it had already been closed, and not through anindependentaction,whichwouldbetriedbyanothercourtorJudgewhichmaythusreverseadecisionororderoftheprobateorintestatecourtalreadyfinaland executed and reshuffle properties long ago distributed and disposed of(Ramosvs.Ortuzar,89Phil.,730,741742Timbolvs.Cano,supra.Jingcovs.Daluz,L5107,April24,1953,92Phil.,1082RomanCatholicvs.Agustines,L



14710,March29,1960,107Phil.,445,455,460461).

Section1ofRule90of theRevisedRulesofCourtof1964asworded,whichsecures for the heirs or legatees the right to "demand and recover theirrespective shares from the executor or administrator, or any other personhavingthesameinhispossession,"restatestheaforeciteddoctrines.

ThecaseofAustriavs.HeirsofVentenilla(99Phil.1069)doesnotcontrolthepresent controversy because themotion filed therein for the removal of theadministratrix and the appointment of a new administrator in her place wasrejectedbythecourtonthegroundoflachesasitwasfiledafterthelapseofabout38years fromOctober5,1910whenthecourt issuedanordersettlinganddecidingtheissuesraisedbythemotion(L10018,September19,1956,99Phil., 10691070). In the case at bar, themotion filed by petitioner for thedeliveryofhersharewasfiledonJuly20,1964,whichisjustmorethan3yearsfromAugust28,1961whentheamendedprojectofpartitionwasapprovedandwithin 5 years fromApril 23, 1960when the original project of partitionwasapproved. Clearly,her right to claim the two lotsallocated toherunder theprojectofpartitionhadnotyetexpired.AndinthelightofSection1ofRule90of theRevisedRulesofCourtof1964and the jurisprudenceabovecited, theorder datedDecember 15, 1960 of the probate court closing and terminatingthe probate case did not legally terminate the testate proceedings, for hershareundertheprojectofpartitionhasnotbeendeliveredtoher.

While it is true that the order dated October 2, 1964 by agreement of thepartiessuspendedresolutionofherpetitionforthedeliveryofhersharesuntilafterthedecisioninthecivilactionfortheannulmentoftheprojectofpartition(CivilCase2539)shefiledonApril10,1964thesaidorderlostitsvalidityandefficacy when the herein petitioner filed on June 11, 1965 an amendedcomplaint in said Civil Case 2539wherein she recognized the partial legalityandvalidityofthesaidprojectofpartitioninsofarastheallocationinherfavorof lotsNos.3368and3441 inthedeliveryofwhichshehasbeen insistingallalong(pp.106107,rec.).

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered:

1.Grantingthewritsprayedfor

2.SettingasidetheordersoftherespondentcourtdatedOctober2,1964andApril27,1966asnullandvoidand,withoutprejudicetothe continuance of Civil Case No. 2539, which, by reason of thisdecision, involves no longer Lots 3368 and 3441 of the BacolorCadastre,

3.Directing

a)theRegisterofDeedsofPampangatocancelTCTNo.26638Rcovering theaforesaid lotsNos.3368and3441



of the Bacolor Cadastre and to issue a new TransferCertificateofTitlecoveringthesaidtwolotsinthenameofhereinpetitionerJuanitaLopezGuilasand

b)therespondentAlejandroLopez

(1) to deliver to herein petitioner Juanita Lopez Guilas thepossessionoflotsNos.3368and3441

(2)todeliverand/orpaytohereinpetitioneralltherents,cropsorincome collected by him from said lots Nos. 3368 and 3441 fromApril23,1960untilthepossessionofthetwoaforementionedlotsisactuallydeliveredtoher,ortheirvaluebasedonthecurrentmarketpriceand

(3)topaythecosts.

SOORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J. B. L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando,Teehankee,Barredo,andVillamor,JJ.,concur.

Source:SupremeCourtELibrary

ThispagewasdynamicallygeneratedbytheELibraryContentManagementSystem(ELibCMS)

Documents

Guilas v. CFI (1972).pdf