G.R. No. 45217 ; June 30, 1939
Intestate of the deceased Benita Lambengco. AMBROSIO SANTIESTEBAN, administrator, ROSA SANTIESTEBAN and THE HEIRS OF PERFECTO SANTIESTEBAN, appellees, vs. GUADALUPE SANTIESTEBAN and CLARA SANTIESTEBAN, appellants.

FACTS

The intestate proceeding for Benita Lambengco was commenced. Her heirs—surviving spouse Ambrosio Santiesteban and children Perfecto, Guadalupe, Rosa, and Clara—executed an extrajudicial partition, which the court approved. The properties were delivered, inheritance tax paid, and the court ordered the final closure of the intestate on November 29, 1932. Later, Ambrosio conveyed eight parcels of land (part of his share) to his daughter Guadalupe. Guadalupe applied for land registration, but Macondray & Co., Inc. opposed, claiming ownership via foreclosure of a mortgage executed by the original owners. The registration court adjudicated the lands to Macondray. Subsequently, on September 10, 1934 (over two years after closure), Guadalupe and Clara filed a motion to reopen the intestate, alleging damages from the loss of the lands and the need to appoint a new administrator. The court initially granted the motion, reopened the intestate, and appointed a new administrator. However, upon motion for reconsideration by Rosa and the heirs of Perfecto, the court set aside its orders reopening the intestate and reinstated the final closure order. Guadalupe and Clara appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction or erred in issuing the order that set aside the reopening of the intestate and reinstated the final closure.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order. The order dated November 12, 1934, which initially granted the motion to reopen, was interlocutory in nature; it did not finally adjudicate rights but merely opened the way for a hearing on alleged damages. Thus, it was subject to reconsideration and not final. The order closing the intestate on November 29, 1932, was the final order that terminated the proceeding, as the estate had been fully distributed and the administrator discharged. Under section 753 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an intestate is closed by the order of distribution after payment of debts. The court’s remarks about the “suspicious” conduct of Ambrosio, Guadalupe, and Clara, even if allegedly unsupported, did not affect the resolution of the appeal, as they were not material to the propriety of reopening the already closed proceeding. The trial court acted within its jurisdiction in setting aside the interlocutory orders and maintaining the final closure.