G.R. No. L-12880; April 30, 1960
Flora A. de del Castillo, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Isabel S. de Samonte, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Clemente del Castillo died intestate in September 1944. In October 1944, his widow, Luisa Vda. de del Castillo, sold 2,000 shares of stock in the Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. to Isabel S. de Samonte. Administration proceedings for Clemente’s estate began in October 1945, and Luisa was appointed Administratrix in December 1945. In 1946, Samonte filed a case for specific performance to recover the shares and obtained a default judgment against Luisa in 1948, which became final. In 1949, Luisa (as Administratrix) and Samonte substituted Certificates of Stock Nos. 1704 and 1706 for one of the originally sold certificates. In October 1950, Luisa, as Administratrix, petitioned the probate court to confirm the sale of these certificates, alleging the sale was necessary for family subsistence during the Japanese occupation. After notice to the heirs, the probate court confirmed the sale on September 29, 1951. Heir Sergio F. del Castillo’s appeal to the Court of Appeals (C.A.- G.R. No. 9189 -R) was dismissed, and a subsequent petition to the Supreme Court was denied. In 1954, the heirs (plaintiffs-appellants) filed the present case to recover a 1/2 interest in the shares, claiming they were conjugal property and the sale of the estate’s portion was void. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling the Court of Appeals’ decision was res judicata.

ISSUE

1. Whether the probate court had authority to confirm the sale of the shares.
2. Whether the procedure for confirming the sale complied with the Rules of Court.
3. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.- G.R. No. 9189 -R constitutes res judicata barring the present action.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the complaint.
1. Authority of Probate Court: The Court held that under Section 4, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, the Administratrix, with court authority, could sell estate property if beneficial to interested persons. The probate court had jurisdiction to authorize or approve the sale based on the Administratrix’s petition alleging necessity. The issuance of letters of administration relates back to the decedent’s death, validating otherwise lawful acts done in the interim.
2. Procedure and Notice: The Court found that questions regarding compliance with procedural rules on notice to heirs had already been raised and resolved in the prior Court of Appeals case (C.A.- G.R. No. 9189 -R), which upheld the probate court’s order. Furthermore, the order approving the sale was a final, appealable order. The failure of the other heirs to appeal made the order final and conclusive as to them.
3. Res Judicata: The doctrine of res judicata applies. The parties are essentially litigating for the same thing—the 1/2 interest in the stock certificates. A party cannot escape res judicata by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting the case. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the prior appeal as the questions, though predominantly legal, were interlaced with factual issues. The prior judgment is conclusive not only on matters actually contested but on all matters that could have been litigated.
The other assignments of error were deemed irrelevant. Costs were imposed on the plaintiffs-appellants.