G.R. No. 39938; August 12, 1933
CARMEN ADRIANO, petitioner, vs. ALFREDO OBLEADA, TEODORICA MARIANO, NATALIA AREVALO VIUDA DE LOPEZ, administratrix of the estate of Mariano Lopez, and PEDRO MA. SISON, Judge of First Instance of Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Carmen Adriano, the surviving mother and instituted heir (to two-thirds) of the deceased Mariano Lopez, sought to intervene in Civil Case No. 44327. In that case, respondents Alfredo Obleada and Teodorica Mariano sued Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez, the administratrix of Mariano Lopez’s estate, to recover an unpaid balance on a promissory note allegedly executed by the deceased and his wife. The committee on claims had disallowed the claim. Adriano alleged the promissory note was fictitious, without consideration, and obtained through fraud, possibly in connivance with the administratrix. The respondent judge denied her motion for intervention.

ISSUE

Whether the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion in denying Adriano’s motion to intervene as an heir in the action to recover a claim against the estate.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus and ordered the judge to permit intervention.
(1) An heir has a legal interest in the outcome of a claim based on a promissory note signed by the predecessor, especially when fraud and lack of consideration are alleged, as any reduction of the estate directly affects the heir’s share.
(2) While the judicial administrator normally represents the estate, heirs may intervene when the administrator is negligent or fails to interpose proper defenses. Here, the administratrix only entered a general denial and failed to specifically deny the note’s genuineness or plead fraud as a special defense, which constituted negligence or possible connivance.
(3) Denying intervention under these circumstances was an abuse of discretion, correctible by mandamus.

AI Generated by Armztrong.