G.R. No. L-5757 and L-5892; March 23, 1953
PAULINA DE JESUS and TORCUATO CARLOS, petitioners, vs. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL., respondents. PAULINA DE JESUS, petitioner, vs. BONIFACIO YSIP, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Eustaquio de Jesus and Victorina Diaz were spouses with four children: Paulina, Ramon, Pedro, and Loreto. Eustaquio died intestate in 1916. Victorina died in 1947. Initially thought to have died intestate, Paulina later filed for probate of Victorina’s will in the Bulacan Court of First Instance in 1951. Her siblings initially opposed but withdrew their opposition, and the will was probated in 1952. Shortly after Victorina’s 1947 death, the four children executed a deed of extra-judicial settlement partitioning most of the parents’ properties, except a Manila lot and about ten parcels of rice land in Marilao, Bulacan, which were kept undivided. Paulina and her husband administered these Bulacan rice lands. Victorina’s will provided that these ten Bulacan parcels were to be kept undivided among her four children for ten years after her death, with the products divided equally: one-half to Ramon, Pedro, and Loreto, and the other half to Paulina’s children. In 1951, Ramon, Pedro, and Loreto filed a complaint in the Manila Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 14431) against Paulina and her husband for partition of the undivided properties. Paulina objected, citing the will’s provision and its pending probate. The Manila court appointed a receiver over Paulina’s objection. Paulina filed G.R. No. L-5757 to set aside the Manila court’s order denying her petition to discharge the receivership. After the Bulacan court probated the will, it declined to appoint an executor. Paulina moved for reconsideration, insisting on her appointment as executrix as designated in the will, to carry out its terms regarding the undivided lands. The Bulacan court denied her motion. Paulina filed G.R. No. L-5892 to set aside this denial and compel her appointment.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Manila court erred in appointing and refusing to discharge a receiver over the Bulacan rice lands subject to the probated will’s condition against partition.
2. Whether the Bulacan court erred in declining to appoint an executor/administratrix to carry out the terms of the probated will regarding the undivided properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted both petitions. The disposition in Victorina’s will requiring the ten Bulacan parcels to remain undivided for ten years was valid. To observe this condition and the disposition of products, the appointment of an executor was necessary. The Manila court’s appointment of a receiver for these Bulacan properties was unnecessary and inadvisable, especially since the only connection to Manila was a separate lot subject to partition. The Bulacan court should appoint an executrix or administrator to implement the will’s terms concerning the undivided lands. Preference in appointment should be given to Paulina de Jesus as the designated executrix in the will, unless the court finds her appointment inadvisable due to the controversy. The Manila court was ordered to discharge the receiver concerning the Bulacan parcels, and the Bulacan court was to proceed with appointing an executor/administrator.