G.R. No. L-27526 September 12, 1974
Angelita G. Vda. de Valera, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. Macario M. Ofilada, as Probate Judge, Court of First Instance of Abra; Adoracion Valera-Bringas, as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Francisco Valera; Provincial Sheriff of Abra; Domingo V. Banez as Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Abra, and Celso Valera, respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari assailing orders and a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Abra, acting as a probate court in the intestate estate of Francisco Valera. The petitioners are the widow and heirs of the late Virgilio Valera, who was the former administrator of Francisco’s estate. After Virgilio’s death, respondent Adoracion Valera-Bringas was appointed administratrix. She filed a petition within the intestate proceeding to compel the families of Virgilio and Celso Valera to pay monthly rental for their occupancy of a residential property, which she claimed was co-owned by Francisco’s estate. The probate court granted this petition in an order dated July 10, 1964, despite the lack of prior service of the petition on Virgilio’s heirs.
Subsequently, the administratrix filed a “Motion for Execution” seeking to enforce the rental order and to compel Virgilio’s heirs to deliver other alleged fruits and monies of Francisco’s estate. The probate court, through respondent Judge Ofilada, issued an order on April 15, 1966, denying the heirs’ motion for reconsideration and granting the motion for execution. This led to a writ of execution and a sheriff’s sale of properties belonging to Virgilio’s heirs on April 3, 1967, to satisfy the claimed liabilities.

ISSUE

Whether the probate court acted in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders and writ of execution against the heirs and estate of Virgilio Valera.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the writ of execution and the related sheriff’s sale, and set aside the challenged orders insofar as they affected the heirs or estate of Virgilio Valera. The Court held that the probate court committed jurisdictional and procedural errors. A probate court is a court of special and limited jurisdiction. Its primary function is to settle the estate of the deceased before it, not to adjudicate substantive contentions regarding ownership or liabilities of third parties or other estates. The claims for rentals and for the delivery of fruits and monies against the late Virgilio Valera and his heirs involved contentious issues that essentially constituted money claims against a different estate (that of Virgilio).
The proper procedure for such claims is for the creditor to institute a separate ordinary action or to file the appropriate claims in the proceeding for the settlement of Virgilio Valera’s own estate, where his legal representative can be heard. The probate court of Francisco Valera exceeded its authority by summarily determining the liabilities of a dead person (Virgilio) without his estate being duly represented and by enforcing those liabilities directly against his heirs. This deprived the heirs of due process and constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the administratrix’s remedy was to file the proper independent action against the administrator of Virgilio’s estate.