G.R. No. 27295, March 23, 1927
LEONCIO ESPINO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. Honorable LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The partnership “La Germinal” obtained a final and executory money judgment against Fidela Enrile and Lorenza Espino in their capacity as administratrices of the testate estate of Bonifacio Inton. However, prior to the finality of this judgment, the Court of First Instance of Bataan, in the administration proceedings, had already approved a project of partition, distributed the estate’s assets to the heirs and legatees (including the petitioners), and subsequently terminated the administration proceedings. After the judgment became final, “La Germinal” caused an execution to be issued against the administratrices. The sheriff levied upon properties that were already distributed to and in the possession of the heirs and legatees. The petitioners (heirs and legatees) filed this original action for prohibition to restrain the sheriff from selling the levied properties and to declare the execution levy null and void.

ISSUE

May a money judgment rendered against the administratrices of an estate be enforced via execution against properties that have already been lawfully distributed to the heirs and legatees, and the administration proceedings terminated, prior to the finality of said judgment?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition and declared the execution levy a nullity.
The Court ruled that:
1. A judgment against administratrices in their official capacity is enforceable only against the assets of the estate under administration.
2. Once the estate’s assets have been distributed by court order and the administration proceedings lawfully terminated, the office of the administrator ceases to exist. The judgment debtors (the administratrices) no longer have a legal personality in that capacity against whom execution can be enforced.
3. The distributed properties are no longer part of the estate; they have passed into the ownership of the heirs and legatees. There is no privity between the judgment creditor (“La Germinal”) and these distributees that would allow direct execution against them under that particular judgment.
4. While the creditor’s right to collect from the estate has preference over the right of the heirs to inherit, the premature distribution of assets does not constitute a fraudulent conveyance that can be treated as a nullity. The proper remedy for the creditor is a separate action to compel the heirs and legatees to contribute to the payment of the estate’s debt to the extent of the assets they received, not an execution under a judgment to which they are not parties.

The preliminary injunction was made permanent, and costs were charged against respondent “La Germinal.”