G.R. No. L-4860, January 7, 1911
Agapito Hinlo, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Saturnina de Leon, administratrix of the estate of Rufino Tongoy, deceased, ET AL., defendants. Saturnina de Leon, appellant.

FACTS

Esteban Hinlo and Nicasia Jamandre owed Rufino Tongoy P2,300.30, secured by a mortgage on a 30-hectare rural property. Both debtors died, leaving five children, including Agapito Hinlo, the eldest, who was a minor at the time of his mother’s death in 1897. No partition of the parents’ estate was made. In 1906, Rufino Tongoy sued the children for payment and sought the sale of the mortgaged property. Tongoy died during the proceedings, and his widow, Saturnina de Leon, as administratrix of his estate, continued the suit. Judgment was rendered against the defendants, and the mortgaged property was sold at auction. Subsequently, the sheriff, upon De Leon’s application, attached and sold carabaos and cattle belonging exclusively to Agapito Hinlo, which he had acquired after his parents’ death, to satisfy the judgment. Agapito Hinlo protested the attachment and filed an action for recovery of possession, claiming the animals were his private property and not part of his parents’ estate.

ISSUE

Whether the attachment and sale of Agapito Hinlo’s personally acquired properties to satisfy the judgment debt of his deceased parents were lawful.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of Agapito Hinlo. The Court held that the properties attached and sold were the exclusive and private property of Agapito Hinlo, acquired after his parents’ death, and were not part of the estate of the deceased debtors. The Court emphasized that under Section 708 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a mortgage creditor like Tongoy (or his successor) must either abandon the security and present the claim to the committee on the debtors’ estate or foreclose the mortgage by making the executor or administrator of the debtors’ estate a party defendant. Here, the creditor did not sue the administrator of the Hinlo estate. Moreover, after the sale of the mortgaged property, the creditor should have obtained a deficiency judgment and presented it to the committee on the estate, rather than levying execution on the separate property of a third party (Agapito Hinlo). The attachment and sale were therefore illegal and violated Agapito Hinlo’s rights. The Court ordered Saturnina de Leon, as administratrix, to pay Agapito Hinlo the value of the animals sold, with interest and costs.