GR L 20609; (November, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20609 November 29, 1967
JUAN DE BORJA, MARCELA DE BORJA, SATURNINA DE BORJA, EUFRACIA DE BORJA, COBA DE BORJA and OLIMPIA DE BORJA, petitioners, vs. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, DR. CRISANTO DE BORJA, Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Marcelo de Borja (CFI-Rizal, 2414), and JOSE DE BORJA, Administrator of the Testate Estate of Josefa Tangco (CFI-Rizal, 7866), respondents.
FACTS
The case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Crisanto de Borja. In a prior decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the rights, interest, and participation of Crisanto de Borja in certain real properties under judicial administration in Special Proceedings Nos. F-7866 and 1955 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which were levied upon pursuant to a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 2414, could be sold at public auction to satisfy a money judgment against him. The Court clarified that the sale would only be of whatever might be adjudicated to him upon the final settlement of the estates, and delivery would be made only after such final settlement in the manner provided by Section 9, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Crisanto de Borja now seeks reconsideration, arguing that the sale should be made only after orders for distribution in both special proceedings have been issued.
ISSUE
Whether the sale of the levied rights, interest, and participation of an heir in estates under judicial administration must await the issuance of orders for distribution, or if it can proceed before the final liquidation of the estates.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration. It held that the sale of whatever rights, interest, and participation Crisanto de Borja has in the estates under judicial administration may proceed, without waiting for the issuance of orders for distribution. The Court cited Gotuaco and Co. vs. Register of Deeds of Tayabas, which held that an heir’s participation in an estate under judicial administration, though indeterminable before final liquidation, may be attached and sold. It also cited Jacosalem vs. Rafols, which held that the sale of an heir’s share in an inheritance, subject to the result of the pending administration, is valid, effective only as to the portion adjudicated to the vendor upon partition. The sale is not of a definite share in any particular property but only of what may be adjudicated to the heir upon final liquidation. The sale, once made, shall be submitted to the probate court for proper consideration upon the final liquidation of the estates.