G.R. No. 39955; September 18, 1933
ANGELES TAPIA VIUDA DE JONES, judicial administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased Walter E. Jones, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, and E. E. ELSER, respondents.

FACTS

In the intestate estate proceedings of Walter E. Jones, a committee determined the available funds and fixed a 17.7% dividend for creditors. Respondent E.E. Elser had a claim against the estate, which was initially disallowed but later upheld in a separate civil case, resulting in a final judgment in his favor. The probate court approved the committee’s report and ordered the administratrix (petitioner) to distribute the funds accordingly. After paying some preferred creditors, the administratrix still held sufficient funds to pay the 17.7% dividend on Elser’s claim. However, she refused to pay. Elser moved for contempt. The respondent judge (Judge Zandueta), presiding over the separate civil case, issued an order directing the administratrix to pay the dividend within three days or face contempt.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge, in the separate civil case, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order to pay the dividend, thereby justifying the annulment of said order via certiorari.

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is denied. The respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction. The probate court had already fixed the distributable dividend within the intestate proceedings. The respondent judge, in the independent civil case, did nothing more than enforce that determination by compelling compliance with the probate court’s order, instead of issuing an ordinary writ of execution on the civil judgment. The administratrix’s defenses—alleged insufficiency of funds and a pending motion for readjustment in the intestate proceedings—were unfounded, as the record showed sufficient funds remained and the motion for readjustment had not been granted.

AI Generated by Armztrong.