G.R. No. 29038 , March 10, 1928
CATALINA ASINAS, assisted by her husband Francisco Medina, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF THE FIRST INSTANCE OF ROMBLON and FELISA ASINAS, respondents.

FACTS

Catalina Asinas filed a petition for the probate of the will of the deceased Mauricio Asinas. Felisa Asinas opposed the probate, claiming to be an acknowledged natural daughter of the deceased. The respondent Court of First Instance of Romblon, after hearing, authorized Felisa Asinas to intervene in the probate proceeding and in the administration of the estate. The court also ordered that the sum of P200 for her travel expenses and those of her witnesses be charged to the estate’s funds. Catalina Asinas objected and moved for reconsideration, which was denied. She then filed this original petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent court from enforcing its orders allowing Felisa’s intervention and the payment of the P200 from the estate.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction in authorizing Felisa Asinas to intervene in the probate proceeding and estate administration.
2. Whether the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the payment of P200 for Felisa Asinas’s expenses from the estate funds.

RULING

1. On the first issue, NO. The court did not exceed its jurisdiction. Under Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any interested party may appear to oppose the probate of a will. A person claiming to be an acknowledged natural child of the decedent has a sufficient interest to intervene. The law does not require conclusive proof or a prior judicial declaration of such status at the intervention stage; it is enough that prima facie evidence of the claimed status is presented. The right to intervene in the appointment of an administrator is a logical consequence of the right to oppose the probate. Therefore, the respondent court acted within its probate jurisdiction in permitting Felisa Asinas to intervene based on prima facie evidence of her status.

2. On the second issue, YES. The court did exceed its jurisdiction in ordering the payment of the P200 expenses from the estate funds. Administration expenses are limited to those necessary for the management, protection, or productivity of the estate. Expenses incurred by a claimant for personal appearance and witnesses to establish her right to oppose probate are not necessary administration expenses. However, the court’s order for such payment is a final and appealable order. Since an appeal provides a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, the extraordinary writ of prohibition is not available.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition for a writ of prohibition is DENIED, and the application is DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioner.

SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Ostrand concurred in the result but noted that the record indicated Felisa Asinas had not yet established a prima facie case for her status as a recognized natural child under the Civil Code.