G.R. No. 48115 ; October 12, 1942
Josefa R. Oppus, petitioner-appellant, vs. Bonifacio San Gil, etc., oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 3498 of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, appellant Josefa R. Oppus sued appellee Bonifacio San Gil, in his capacity as administrator of the intestate estate of Florentino San Gil, for the possession of specific personal properties (including 24 beds, a piano, chairs, tables, iceboxes, a phonograph, and a mirror). On November 1, 1933, the court rendered judgment ordering the defendant administrator to deliver the furniture to the plaintiff. This judgment remained unsatisfied. On October 6, 1939, Oppus filed a motion in the intestate proceeding of Florentino San Gil, asking the probate court to order the administrator to deliver the furniture. The probate court denied the motion on two grounds: (1) the furniture did not belong to the estate of the deceased, and (2) execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 3498 should be applied for in that case itself.

ISSUE

Whether the probate court correctly denied the motion for delivery of the furniture, and whether the proper remedy for the appellant is to seek execution in the ordinary court that rendered the judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the probate court. The first ground for denial was correct because it was established in Civil Case No. 3498 that the furniture belonged to appellant Oppus, who had bought it from the deceased Florentino San Gil. The second ground was also well-founded. The administrator was sued in his official capacity in the ordinary court, and a judgment was rendered against him. There is no legal impediment to executing that judgment by order of the court that rendered it. The appellant’s contention that she must apply to the probate court because the property is in custodia legis is untenable. The judgment is for the manual delivery of specific personal property, not for a sum of money to be satisfied from estate assets. An action for the possession of specific articles survives and may be prosecuted against an executor or administrator under the law. Once the court in such an action determines the property belongs to the plaintiff and not to the estate, it cannot be considered in custodia legis. Therefore, the motion in the probate court was not proper. The Court noted that appellant had previously procured writs of execution in February 1934 and September 1935 in Civil Case No. 3498, and it could not understand why the judgment remained unsatisfied. The order was affirmed, but costs were not awarded against the appellant due to the appellee’s unjustifiable refusal to comply with the judgment.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Paras concurred, adding that while the appellant may be the owner, the property could still be in custodia legis if the appellee possessed it as administrator. He expressed doubt about the conclusiveness of the judgment in Civil Case No. 3498, noting that Damasa Melendres, who was alleged to have bought the properties from the deceased and donated them to the intestate’s children, should have been included as a party defendant. He also noted an appeal was pending in a related case (No. 4295) concerning the validity of the sale to Melendres.