G.R. No. L-14851; August 31, 1961
Intestate Estate of Marcelo de Borja. Dr. Crisanto de Borja, administrator, Juan de Borja, et al., oppositors-appellees, vs. Jose de Borja, administrator of the Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco, third party claimant-oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

A final and executory Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. L-6622 ordered Crisanto de Borja to pay a sum of money to certain judgment creditors, the Borja oppositors. To satisfy this judgment, the sheriff levied upon Crisanto’s “rights, interest or participation as prospective heir” in specific real properties forming part of the estate of the deceased Josefa Tangco, which was under judicial settlement (Special Proceedings No. 7866). Jose de Borja, as administrator of Josefa Tangco’s estate, filed a third-party claim with the sheriff, asserting that the levied properties belonged to an estate in custodia legis and were thus exempt from execution. The sheriff, acting on this claim, required the judgment creditors to post an indemnity bond of P2,500,000. The creditors contested this requirement in court.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the interest of an heir in a decedent’s estate under judicial administration can be validly levied upon via a writ of execution; and (2) whether the judgment creditors were required to post an indemnity bond due to the administrator’s third-party claim.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order, ruling the levy was proper and no bond was required. On the first issue, the Court held that the interest of an heir in a pending estate settlement is subject to attachment and execution. This is explicitly permitted under Section 14, Rule 39, in relation to Section 7(f), Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, which allows attachment of “the interest of the defendant in property belonging to the estate of a decedent, whether as heir, legatee, etc.” The Court cited Cook v. Escobar, which established that such rights may be attached, subject to the administration of the estate. The administrator retains control and may still sell properties for estate debts, but the heir’s contingent right of inheritance is a leviable interest. The Court also referenced Gotauco & Co. v. Register of Deeds of Tayabas, which held that a right of participation in an estate, even if its exact value is indeterminable before final liquidation, may be attached and sold.
The Court rejected the administrator’s argument that Crisanto’s status as an heir could not be inquired into in this proceeding. It noted the levy specifically described Crisanto as a “prospective heir” of Josefa Tangco and Francisco de Borja, and since it was undisputed he was their son, this description was accurate. On the second issue, the Court ruled the filing of an indemnity bond was unnecessary because the administrator’s opposition did not constitute a genuine third-party claim. There was no conflict between the attached interest (Crisanto’s prospective share) and the estate’s title, as the levy was expressly made subject to the estate administration. The administrator did not dispute Crisanto’s status as an heir but only challenged the levy’s legality, which the Court found to be valid. Therefore, the sheriff exceeded his authority in demanding the bond.