GR L 18181; (July, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18181 July 31, 1963
INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED GENEROSO DE GALA, ILUMINADA DE GALA-SISON, petitioner, vs. SOCORRO MANALO, respondent.
FACTS
Generoso de Gala died in a plane crash in 1946. His daughter, Iluminada de Gala-Sison, was appointed administratrix of his estate. She submitted an inventory of properties. Socorro Manalo, another heir, opposed this inventory. She claimed that specific pieces of jewelry, detailed in her Exhibit “Y”, belonged to the estate and were not included. Manalo alleged that after de Gala’s death, Iluminada retrieved these jewels from a safe in Candelaria and exhibited them to family members. Iluminada countered that the jewelry was lost in the crash, as her father had brought it with him to Manila.
The trial court ordered Iluminada to include the jewelry in an amended inventory and to deposit cash in her possession, amounting to P40,938.56, in a bank. The Court of Appeals affirmed these orders. Iluminada elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, contesting both the inclusion of the jewelry and the deposit order.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the trial and appellate courts erred in finding that the jewelry listed in Exhibit “Y” existed after the decedent’s death and should be included in the estate inventory, and (2) whether the court erred in ordering the deposit of the cash balance with a banking institution.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order regarding the jewelry but modified the deposit order. On the first issue, the Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts. It found no reason to overturn the conclusion that the jewelry was not lost in the crash. The trial court’s finding, based on the preponderance of evidence, was that the jewelry was shown to family members in Candelaria after the funeral. The appellate court found Iluminada’s claim that her wealthy father brought all his jewelry to Manila, where he lived in a modest shack, to be “implausible.” The Supreme Court, noting that factual findings of lower courts are generally conclusive, sustained the order for an amended inventory.
Regarding the cash deposit, the Court found the order proper for safeguarding the estate assets but required modifications for accuracy. The amount of P40,938.56 needed reduction by P1,698.41, representing court-approved expenses. Furthermore, the order must account for subsequent lawful disbursements, such as allowances and shares already paid to heirs pursuant to a prior court order. Thus, the deposit order was modified to apply only to the remaining cash balance after these deductions.