G.R. No. L-12068; May 31, 1960
EUFROCINA TAMISIN, as administratrix of the Intestate Estate of the deceased CECILIO TAMISIN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. AMBROCIO ODEJAR and GLICERIA GIBAS, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On February 18, 1951, the Judge Advocate General filed an interpleader case (Civil Case No. 9401) concerning funds of the deceased Lt. Roberto Tamisin. The defendants Ambrocio Odejar and Gliceria Gibas filed a cross-claim against Cecilio Tamisin and his children, alleging they were entitled to half of certain arrears in pay previously awarded to the Tamisins, claiming their daughter Paula Odejar was married to Roberto. Cecilio Tamisin died during the pendency of the case. Due to the heirs’ inaction, Odejar initiated special proceedings (No. 4492) for the settlement of Cecilio’s estate. A special administrator was appointed but failed to qualify. The cross-claim against Cecilio was eliminated, and the case proceeded against his children. On March 23, 1953, a final judgment was rendered ordering Rufino, Eufrocina, and Teresa Tamisin to pay Odejar and Gibas P5,688.71. No appeal was taken.
To satisfy this final judgment, the provincial sheriff levied upon five parcels of land. The Tamisins attempted to block the sale through various motions and a petition to the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. No. 14357-R), which was dismissed for lack of merit. The probate court also denied a motion to suspend the sale. On March 28, 1956, the lands were sold at public auction to the Odejar spouses. Subsequently, on June 15, 1956, Eufrocina Tamisin was appointed administratrix of her father Cecilio’s estate. After the Odejars refused her demand for reconveyance, Eufrocina, as administratrix, filed the present action to annul the auction sale and for reconveyance, arguing the properties were in custodia legis (in the custody of the law) due to the pending intestate proceedings. The trial court dismissed her complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the five parcels of land sold at public auction were in custodia legis at the time of the levy and execution sale, thereby rendering the sale null and void.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the properties were not in custodia legis at the time of the levy and execution sale on March 28, 1956.
The Court explained that property is considered in custodia legis when it has been subjected to the official custody of a judicial or executive officer in pursuance of a legal writ. While special proceedings for the settlement of Cecilio Tamisin’s estate were commenced in 1952, the assets had not been placed under the court’s control because no administrator had qualified. The appointed special administrator failed to qualify, and Eufrocina Tamisin was only appointed administratrix in June 1956, several months after the auction sale. Consequently, at the critical time of the levy and sale, there was no court officer or custodian in possession or control of the properties.
The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on Saturnino vs. Paulino, clarifying that the mere filing of special proceedings does not automatically place a decedent’s property in custodia legis. An inventory, which can only be made by a qualified administrator or executor, is necessary to bring the property under the court’s jurisdiction. Since no administrator had qualified by the sale date, the properties remained outside the probate court’s custody and were therefore subject to a valid execution sale to satisfy the final judgment against the Tamisin heirs.
The Court also noted that the validity of the underlying judgment (Civil Case No. 9401) was already conclusively settled by the Court of Appeals’ prior dismissal of the Tamisins’ petition for its annulment. The complaint was dismissed, and the appellant in her personal capacity was ordered to pay attorney’s fees.