G.R. No. L-18937 May 16, 1967
Intestate Estate of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando deceased Natividad E. Ignacio and Leonor E. Almazan, administratrices-appellants, vs. Eduardo Elchico and Florencio Elchico, co-administrators of the Estate of the Deceased Jose L. Elchico, oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

The case involves the intestate estate of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando. Her major heirs—Jose L. Elchico, Salud Elchico Reyes, and Natividad Elchico Ignacio—submitted a joint petition for partial partition and distribution, which was approved by the Manila probate court on April 3, 1956, upon the filing of a P150,000 bond to answer for estate obligations. Jose L. Elchico received the Angat transportation business and a parcel of land on Misericordia Street, Manila. Jose L. Elchico later died, and the settlement of his estate is pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. In June 1959, the co-administrators of Jose’s estate sold the Angat business upon the Rizal court’s authority. The Misericordia property remains under their administration, and the Rizal court also granted authority to sell it. The administratrices of Encarnacion’s estate filed a motion with the Manila probate court, praying that the Misericordia lot be turned over to them so that Jose’s share of the obligations of Encarnacion’s estate (which included approved and pending claims of nearly P400,000, including estate and inheritance taxes) could be satisfied therefrom. They argued that nothing from the sale of the Angat business was turned over for Jose’s obligations, that Jose had no other property, and that the other heirs were solvent. The administrators of Jose’s estate opposed, citing Section 6, Rule 89 of the 1940 Rules of Court, arguing that the Manila court lacked jurisdiction over the Misericordia lot, which was under the Rizal court’s control, and that the P150,000 bond was sufficient. The Manila probate court denied the administratrices’ motion and set the case for hearing to determine Jose’s contributive share. The motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Manila probate court committed a reversible abuse of discretion in denying the motion to turn over the Misericordia property and instead setting a hearing to determine the contributive share of heir Jose L. Elchico.
2. Whether the Manila probate court could validly order the turnover of the Misericordia property, which was under the custody of the Rizal probate court.

RULING

1. No, the Manila probate court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. The court acted within its authority under Section 6, Rule 88 of the Rules of Court, which allows a probate court to settle the liabilities of heirs who have entered possession before debts are paid and order their contribution. The court’s order to set a hearing to determine Jose L. Elchico’s share in the obligations was in line with this rule. The total liabilities of Encarnacion’s estate and Jose’s specific share were still indefinite. Furthermore, there was a P150,000 bond to answer for estate debts. Once Jose’s obligation is determined after hearing, the court could issue execution against the properties he received or take other steps. Without such a hearing, an order for the return of distributed property would be premature.
2. No, the Manila probate court could not validly order the turnover. The Misericordia property was in custodia legis of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a coordinate court. Out of respect for the prerogatives of the Rizal court and to avoid confusion and impairment of justice, the Manila court should not interfere with the Rizal court’s administration of that property, especially since the Rizal court had already directed the sale of the property to satisfy, among others, Jose’s share of the taxes due from Encarnacion’s estate. The Manila court may not nullify the Rizal court’s order directly or indirectly.
The orders appealed from were affirmed.