G.R. No. L-30453 December 4, 1989
Angelina Puentevella Echaus, etc., petitioner, vs. Hon. Ramon Blanco, as Judge, etc., and Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank, etc., et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Angelina Puentevella Echaus filed a complaint for accounting and recovery of shares against Charles Newton Hodges, docketed as Civil Case No. 6628. During the pendency of the case, Hodges died. The trial court ordered the substitution of respondent Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) as the administrator of Hodges’ estate. The parties subsequently submitted a stipulation of facts, agreeing to be bound by the court’s decision as final. On December 5, 1966, the trial court rendered judgment ordering PCIB, as administrator, to pay petitioner P851,472.83. A writ of execution was granted but not enforced, as petitioner instead filed a motion for payment in the estate settlement proceedings (Special Proceedings No. 1672).
Respondent Avelina A. Magno, administratrix of the estate of Hodges’ wife, opposed the motion. Magno and the Hodges heirs also filed a petition for relief from judgment and motions to intervene in Civil Case No. 6628, which were all denied for being filed after final judgment. Respondent Judge Ramon Blanco, presiding over the estate proceedings, issued an order holding in abeyance the resolution of petitioner’s motion for payment pending the resolution of the petition for relief. After that petition was denied, petitioner filed a second motion for payment, which prompted the instant mandamus petition to compel the judge to issue an order directing PCIB to pay the judgment credit.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the probate court to order the administrator to pay a final judgment credit against the estate.

RULING

No, mandamus does not lie. The Supreme Court clarified that while the judgment credit should be admitted as a claim against the estate of Hodges, immediate payment is not a matter of right compellable by mandamus. Properties of an estate under settlement are in custodia legis. A judgment against an administrator is to be paid in the due course of administration; it does not create an immediate lien or priority on the estate assets. The time for payment of debts is discretionary with the probate court, to be fixed based on the estate’s settlement progress. Furthermore, at the time of petitioner’s motion, the respondent judge’s discretion was constrained by a Supreme Court writ of preliminary injunction in related cases, which, despite a clarifying resolution, did not encompass orders for payment of claims. For mandamus to issue, petitioner must have a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty. Here, the respondent judge had judicial discretion in administering the estate and scheduling debt payments. Absent a showing that the estate was already authorized to distribute assets and pay debts, no ministerial duty to order payment existed. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.