G.R. No. L-24538 May 4, 1968
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS, PONCIANO B. FLORES, petitioner-appellant, vs. ROSALINA SANTOS, in her capacity as Executrix, ARSENIO S. PASCUAL and MARVIN S. BUENDIA, oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

The case involves the testate estate of Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas. On June 11, 1964, the executrix and residuary heirs presented a second partial project of partition to the probate court. This project adjudicated the hereditary rights of heir Marvin S. Buendia, including his 2/80 share in a property covered by TCT No. 42372, in favor of Arsenio S. Pascual, to whom Buendia had allegedly sold and assigned those rights on December 15, 1962. The lower court approved this project of partition on June 15, 1964.
Petitioner Ponciano B. Flores filed a verified petition on July 3, 1964, to set aside the June 15 order. He claimed to be the purchaser of Buendia’s 2/80 share at a public auction sale conducted by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal on February 12, 1964, pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga in a civil case (Flores vs. Buendia). Flores alleged he was not notified of the hearing for the project of partition, that the executrix had been informed of the auction sale, and that the adjudication to Pascual violated the Rules of Court. He prayed for the share to be delivered to the Sheriff subject to redemption.
The executrix opposed, arguing the adjudication to Pascual was valid because Buendia had already sold and assigned his rights to Pascual in 1962, before the sheriff’s sale; thus, Flores acquired nothing at the auction. Flores replied that he was a purchaser in good faith and for value, having found the title free from liens, and that the sheriff’s sale was duly annotated on the title, whereas Pascual’s assignment was not.
The lower court, per Judge Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, denied Flores’s petition to set aside its order on August 31, 1964, “without prejudice to any other action which [petitioner] may take on the matter as against Marvin S. Buendia.” Flores appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in denying the petition to set aside its order approving the second partial project of partition, which adjudicated Marvin S. Buendia’s hereditary share to Arsenio S. Pascual, despite Flores’s claim of having purchased that share at an execution sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order of August 31, 1964, denying the petition. The Court held that Flores failed to comply with the specific procedural requirements for attaching an interest in property that is part of an estate in custodia legis. Under Rule 57, Section 7(f) of the Rules of Court, when attaching such an interest, a copy of the order of attachment must be filed with the court where the estate is being settled and served upon the custodian (the executor or administrator). The Court emphasized that this rule is mandatory: “If the property sought to be attached is in custodia legis, a copy of the order of attachment shall be filed with the proper court and notice of the attachment served upon the custodian of such property.”
Since Flores did not follow this procedure—he did not file a copy of the writ of attachment with the probate court handling the estate of Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas—the writ of execution issued by the Pampanga court could not validly affect the property forming part of that estate. Consequently, the probate court’s order adjudicating the share to Pascual, the prior assignee, was valid and could not be impugned on the basis of that unperfected attachment. The Court noted that the lower court’s order safeguarded Flores’s rights against the heir Buendia, but the propriety of the probate court’s distribution order could not be undone through this petition. The appeal was dismissed, with costs against Flores.