G.R. No. 32638, November 14, 1930
JOSE JIMENEZ DELA PEÑA and MARIA INES JIMENEZ DELA PEÑA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. MARINA YULO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiffs are creditors of the deceased spouses Gregorio Yulo and Filomena Ortiz, claiming an unpaid balance of P3,261.59 from the conjugal partnership. The claim was filed and approved in the intestate proceedings of Gregorio Yulo. During the lifetime of Gregorio Yulo, after Filomena Ortiz’s death, certain conjugal properties were registered one-half in the name of Gregorio Yulo and the other half in the names of their six children (the defendants). In the intestate proceedings of Gregorio Yulo, the administrator proposed a “barter” (permuta) of properties between the estate of Gregorio Yulo and the children, which was approved by the court through orders dated August 7, 1926, and September 1, 1926. Initially, the order provided that the properties adjudicated to the children would remain subject to the estate’s obligations, but it was later amended to free those properties from all liens. The plaintiffs were not notified of these proceedings. The estate of Gregorio Yulo was insolvent, and the plaintiffs sought to annul the court orders and enforce their credit as a lien on the properties adjudicated to the defendants.

ISSUE

Whether the court orders approving the barter of properties between the estate of Gregorio Yulo and the defendants (children) can be annulled, and whether the plaintiffs’ credit constitutes a lawful lien on the properties adjudicated to the defendants.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and absolved the defendants from the complaint. The court held that the orders dated August 7, 1926, and September 1, 1926, were valid and had become final and irrevocable, as they were neither excepted to nor appealed from in due time. The lack of notification to the plaintiffs did not vitiate the orders, as the plaintiffs had not appeared in the intestate proceedings at the time, and there was no allegation or proof of fraud. Consequently, the properties adjudicated to the defendants via the barter could no longer be deemed subject to a lien for the plaintiffs’ credit. The plaintiffs’ remedy lies in enforcing their personal judgment against the defendants obtained in a separate civil case, not in annulling the final orders or imposing a lien on the properties.