G.R. No. L-3342; April 18, 1951
Intestate Estate of the deceased Lee Liong. RAFAEL A. DINGLASAN, ET ALS., petitioners-appellees, vs. ANG CHIA, as Administratrix of the above intestate, LEE BING HOO alias CLARO LEE, and LEE BUN TING, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Rafael Dinglasan et al. filed a civil case (No. V-331) in the Court of First Instance of Capiz against Ang Chia, her son Claro Lee, and Lee Bun Ting to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of land and damages. During the proceedings, the plaintiffs discovered the pending intestate estate proceedings of the deceased Lee Liong, in which Ang Chia was the administratrix. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to include the administratrix as a party-defendant. To protect their interests, they also filed in the intestate proceedings a verified claim in intervention and a motion praying for the appointment of a co-administrator and an increase of the administratrix’s bond from P500 to P20,000. Through their claim, they noted the pendency of the civil case and prayed that the intestate proceedings not be closed until the civil case was terminated. On August 4, 1948, the court issued an order denying the co-administrator petition but increasing the bond to P5,000, and stated it would act on the petition not to close the proceedings if a motion to close was later presented and objected to. The administratrix did not appeal this order. Later, the administratrix moved for the closing of the intestate proceedings and her discharge, citing an extrajudicial partition by the heirs. The petitioners objected. On July 15, 1949, the court issued an order holding in abeyance the approval of the partition and the closing of the proceedings until after a decision in the civil case. The administratrix and heirs appealed this order.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in taking cognizance of and being guided by the “claim” of the petitioners-appellees.
2. Whether the lower court erred in holding in abeyance the closing of the intestate proceedings pending the termination of the separate civil action.
3. Whether the lower court erred in ordering the administratrix to file an increased bond of P5,000.

RULING

1. The lower court did not err in taking cognizance of the civil case. The court’s act was not tantamount to assuming jurisdiction over the civil case, which would be beyond its limited probate jurisdiction. The court merely made of record the existence of the civil case due to its close interrelation with the intestate proceedings, as the property in litigation was the only property left in the estate. The order of August 4, 1948, which initially addressed the bond and cognizance, had become final as no appeal was taken from it.
2. The lower court did not err in holding the closing of the intestate proceedings in abeyance. Section 1, Rule 88 of the Rules of Court allows actions to recover property from an estate to be commenced against the executor or administrator. To allow the intestate proceedings to be closed arbitrarily while such an action is pending would render this rule nugatory. Furthermore, Section 17, Rule 3 implies that a probate case may be held in abeyance pending the determination of an ordinary case where an administrator is a party.
3. The lower court did not err regarding the increased bond. The order to increase the bond to P5,000 was issued on August 4, 1948, and no appeal was taken from it, making it final. The subsequent order of July 15, 1949, reiterating the requirement to file the bond, did not revive the right to appeal the earlier, final order. Moreover, such an order is interlocutory and within the court’s sound discretion.
The order appealed from is affirmed.