G.R. No. L-3781 March 19, 1951
TOPANDAS VERHOMAL, as administrator of the estate of the deceased Gurinomal Thawardas, also known as Cuna T. Lalawani, petitioner,

vs.
BIENVENIDO A. TAN, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City, and ANTONIO G. AZAOLA, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 25 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled Antonio G. Azaola, plaintiff, vs. Guna Lalwani, V. Lilaram & Company and Gacilago & Company, judgment was rendered on July 19, 1949. The dispositive part ordered, among other things, that plaintiff Azaola was entitled to receive from defendant Gacilago & Co. and Guna Lalwani whisky, rum and/or gin to cover the amount of P10,000, with provisions for delivery and sale at public auction if plaintiff failed to take delivery, and for a writ of execution for any remaining balance against defendants Gacilago & Co. and Guna Lalwani jointly and severally. Defendant Guna Lalwani died on June 16, 1949. On July 25, 1949, Topandas Verhomal was appointed administrator of Lalwani’s estate in Special Proceeding No. 965 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. On October 31, 1949, Azaola filed a claim for P10,000 in the intestate estate proceedings based on the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 25. On December 16, 1949, Judge Bienvenido A. Tan, presiding over the intestate proceedings, issued an order admitting Azaola’s claim. On March 10, 1950, Judge Tan granted Azaola’s ex-parte petition and ordered the administrator to pay the P10,000 claim. The administrator filed motions asking for suspension of the payment order until the Manila court in Civil Case No. 25 could act on a motion for an alias execution to sell the wine mentioned in the judgment and apply the proceeds to the claim. Judge Tan denied these motions, stating the probate court saw no reason to delay action on the already admitted and final claim, and directed the administrator to pay. The administrator filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and the judge then ordered the administrator to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for not complying with the payment order.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion (a) in denying the petitioner’s motions of March 20 (for suspension of payment) and April 2 (for reconsideration), and (b) in ordering the petitioner to appear to answer for contempt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the remedy of certiorari does not lie unless it is clearly demonstrated that the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. It is not available to correct procedural errors or errors in conclusions of fact or law. The orders denying the motions for suspension and reconsideration were mere corollaries of the order admitting the P10,000 claim. If the petitioner believed the order admitting the claim was erroneous, the remedy was to appeal it, in accordance with Rule 87, Section 13. The Court further held that property in custodia legis, such as an estate under administration, cannot be subject to execution without legal authority, and no law authorizes the levy upon such estate property. The proper procedure for a money judgment against a deceased is to file a claim in the estate proceedings under Rule 87, Section 5, which Azaola did. The respondent judge, as a probate court, had the inherent power to enforce its duly issued orders through contempt proceedings. The petitioner should have appeared at the scheduled hearing to present his defense, and if erroneously convicted, his remedy was an appeal in the ordinary course of procedure.