G.R. No. 41433; March 28, 1934
In re estate of the deceased Mariano Lopez. NATALIA AREVALO, administratix of the estate of Mariano Lopez, deceased, petitioner, vs. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, CARMEN ADRIANO and THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Natalia Arevalo, the former administratrix of the estate of Mariano Lopez. The respondent Judge Leopoldo Rovira issued an order dated February 13, 1934, directing the Sheriff of Manila to take immediate possession of all properties of the estate. The order also directed that any amounts collected be applied first to the payment of a monthly pension of P100 to Carmen Adriano (the decedent’s mother), charged against her eventual share. This order was issued after a series of incidents: (1) On January 19, 1934, the court removed Arevalo as administratrix and appointed Adriano in her place; (2) On January 24, 1934, Judge Pedro Concepcion issued an order restraining Adriano from taking possession pending resolution of Arevalo’s motion for reconsideration; (3) The February 13 order effectively set aside the restraining order and placed the estate properties in the sheriff’s custody. Arevalo challenged the February 13 order via certiorari, arguing the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order of February 13, 1934, thereby warranting the grant of the writ of certiorari.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction.
1. The order of January 19, 1934, removing Arevalo as administratrix and appointing Adriano was a final and appealable order. Arevalo’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and she did not appeal. Thus, certiorari is an improper remedy to annul such appointment.
2. The order for the payment of a P100 monthly pension to Adriano, originally issued on September 25, 1933, and reiterated in a decision dated December 19, 1933, had become final. Arevalo’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 13, 1934, and while she filed a notice of appeal, the record on appeal was still pending approval. Regardless, the pension order was final, and certiorari is not the proper remedy.
3. The order directing the sheriff to take possession of the estate properties was a valid exercise of the court’s probate jurisdiction. Given the conflicting orders (the appointment of Adriano and the restraining order against her), the estate properties were left without anyone authorized by the court to protect them. The order was a temporary measure to ensure the properties were in custodia legis (in the custody of the court) and under its control to prevent loss or dissipation. The court acted within its authority to safeguard the estate assets during the administration.

AI Generated by Armztrong.