25 Pastor v.

CA (Panda) the properties subject of the legacy and which were in the names of the
June 24, 1983| Plana, J. | Estate Tax spouses PASTOR, JR. and his wife, who claimed to be the owners thereof
in their own rights, and not by inheritance. (Reconveyance Suit)
PETITIONER: Spouses Alvaro Pastor, Jr. and Ma. Elena Achaval de Pastor 5. Meanwhile, PASTOR, JR. and SOFIA filed their opposition to the petition
RESPONDENTS: CA, Judge Reyes, and Lewellyn Quemada for probate and the order appointing QUEMADA as special administrator.
6. The Probate Court (in the Probate Proceedings) ordered the allowance of
SUMMARY: PASTOR, SR. died, survived by his now-deceased wife, two
legitimate children named PASTOR, JR. and SOFIA, and illegitimate child, the will, which was affirmed by the CA.
QUEMADA. QUEMADA was appointed as Special Administrator and sought to 7. However, on petition for review, the SC dismissed the petition in a minute
enforce the alleged holographic will of PASTOR, SR. which gave him a legacy resolution and remanded the same to the Probate Court after denying
consisting of 30% of PASTOR, SR.’s 42% share in ATLAS’ Mining Operations. reconsideration on January 11, 1978.
On Aug. 1980, and finally on Dec. 1982, the Probate Court issued an order and 8. For two years after the remand, QUEMADA filed pleading after pleading
writ of execution and garnishment. The propriety of such Order is the main issue asking for the payment of his legacy and the seizure properties subject of
of this case.
said legacy which PASTOR, JR. and SOFIA opposed on the ground of
The Court ruled that such Order and Writ were issued in grave abuse of pendency of the reconveyance suit.
discretion as the Probate Decision did not determine and liquidate PASTOR 9. All pleadings remained unacted upon by the Probate Court.
SR.’s properties and had yet to pass upon the extrinsic validity of the will. Since 10. March 15, 1980 – The Probate Court set a hearing for the intrinsic validity
the assets were yet to be liquidated, there would be no way to determine if of the will but such was cancelled as PASTOR, JR. and SOFIA objected on
QUEMADA’s share was inofficious. More importantly, the estate had yet to be the ground of the pendency of the reconveyance suit.
paid. Payment therefore of the legacy to QUEMADA would collide with the
11. Hence, the Probate Court required the parties to submit their position papers
provision of the National Internal Revenue Code requiring payment of estate tax
before delivery to any beneficiary of his distributive share of the estate on how much inheritance QUEMADA was entitled to receive. ATLAS also
submitted a sown statement of royalties paid to the Pastor Group from the
DOCTRINE: Estate tax should be paid first before delivery to any beneficiary time PASTOR, SR. died to Feb. 1980.
of his distributive share of a decedent’s estate. 12. Of the 60% paid to the Pastor Group, 40.5% was given to PASTOR, JR.,
15% to Pelaez, and 4.5% to QUEMADA.
13. Aug. 20, 1980 – The Probate Court issued an Order of Execution and
Garnishment, resolving the question of ownership of the royalties payable
FACTS:
1. Alvaro Pastor, Sr. (PASTOR, SR.) was survived by his now deceased wife, by ATLAS and ruling in effect that the legacy to QUEMADA was not
Sofia Bossio, and two legitimate children, Alvaro Pastor, Jr. (PASTOR, inofficious. [There was absolutely no statement or claim in the Order that
JR.) and Sofia Pastor de Midgely (SOFIA), and an illegitimate child named the Probate Order of December 5, 1972 had previously resolved the issue of
Lewellyn Barlito Quemada (QUEMADA). ownership of the mining rights of royalties thereon, nor the intrinsic validity
2. Nov. 13, 1970 – QUEMADA filed a petition for probate and allowance of of the holographic will.]
an alleged holographic will of PASTOR, SR. which contained one 14. The Probate Court directed ATLAS to remit directly to QUEMADA the
testamentary disposition: a legacy in favor of QUEMADA consisting of 42% royalties due decedent's estate, of which QUEMADA was authorized
30% of PASTOR, SR.’S 42% share in the operation by ATLAS Mining of to retain 75% for himself as legatee and to deposit 25% with a reputable
some mining claims in Cebu. (Probate Proceedings) banking institution for payment of the estate taxes and other obligations of
3. The Probate Court, upon QUEMADA’s motion and ex parte hearing, the estate.
appointed QUEMADA as a special administrator of the entire estate of 15. The 33% share of PASTOR, JR. (Probate Court found that PASTOR, JR.
PASTOR, SR., whether or not covered by the holographic will. owned 33% shares) and/or his assignees was ordered garnished to answer
4. Dec. 7, 1970 – QUEMADA instituted against PASTOR, JR. and his wife an for the accumulated legacy of QUEMADA from the time of PASTOR,
action or reconveyance of alleged properties of the estate, which included SR.'s death, which amounted to over two million pesos.
 16. After being notified of the “immediately executory” order of the Probate 2. As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the
Court, PASTOR, JR. filed an MR on the ground that the Probate Court Probate Court cannot resolve with finality.
gravely abused its discretion when it resolved the question of ownership of 3. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or
the royalties and ordered the payment of QUEMADA's legacy after should not be included in the inventory of estate properties, the Probate
prematurely passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will. Court may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional,
17. In the meantime, the Probate Court ordered suspension of payment of all not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to
royalties due PASTOR, JR. and/or his assignees until after resolution of resolve title.
PASTOR, JR.’s motion for reconsideration. 4. Nowhere in the dispositive portion of the Probate Proceedings was there a
18. Before the MR was resolved, PASTOR, JR. and wife filed with the CA, a declaration of ownership of specific properties.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing the Order and Writ of 5. On the contrary, it is manifest therein that ownership was not resolved. For
Execution and Garnishment which was denied, partly due to the existing it confined itself to the question of extrinsic validity of the win, and the
MR with the Probate Court need for and propriety of appointing a special administrator.
19. MR was applied for stating that the MR filed with the Probate Court was 6. In fact, the dispositive portion declared that the intestate estate
denied on Dec. 5, 1972. MR was also denied. administration aspect must proceed " subject to the outcome of the suit for
20. Hence, this Petition. reconveyance of ownership and possession of real and personal properties
in Civil Case 274-T before Branch IX of the CFI of Cebu. (Reconveyance
Suit)
ISSUE: 7. When the Probate Order was issued on Dec. 5, 1972 (the denial of the MR
of the Order of Aug. 20, 1980), PASTOR, SR.’s assets were yet to be
1. WON the Probate Order of December 5, 1972 resolved with finality the
liquidated.
questions of ownership (of the ATLAS shares) and intrinsic validity (of the
8. There was no appropriate determination, much less payment, of the debts of
holographic will). – No.
the decedent and his estate.
2. WON the remedy of Certiorari was proper – Yes.
9. The estate tax was not yet determined and paid, or at least provided for, as
RULING: of Dec. 5, 1972.
10. The net assets of the estate not having been determined, the legitime of the
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. SP-11373-R is forced heirs in concrete figures could not be ascertained.
reversed. The Order of execution issued by the probate Court dated August 20, 1980, 11. All the foregoing deficiencies considered, it was not possible to determine
as well as all the Orders issued subsequent thereto in alleged implementation of the whether the legacy of QUEMADA - a fixed share in a specific property
Probate Order dated December 5, 1972, particularly the Orders dated November 11, rather than an aliquot part of the entire net estate of the deceased - would
1980 and December 17, 1980, are hereby set aside; and this case is remanded to the produce an impairment of the legitime of the compulsory heir.
appropriate Regional Trial Court for proper proceedings, subject to the judgment to
be rendered in Civil Case No. 274-R. SO ORDERED. On the Propriety of Certiorari

RATIO: 1. Without a final adjudication of what properties compose the estate of

PASTOR, SR., in the face of conflicting claims made by heirs and non-heir,
On the Order and the absence of resolution on the intrinsic validity of the will in question,
there was no basis for the Probate Courts order to pay the legacy of
1. In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue is restricted to the QUEMADA.
extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind, 2. The ordered payment of legacy would be violative of the rule requiring
freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by prior liquidation of the estate of the deceased, i.e., the determination of the
law. assets of the estate and payment of all debts and expenses, before
 apportionment and distribution of the residue among the heirs and legatees.
3. Neither has the estate tax been paid on the estate of PASTOR, SR. Payment
therefore of the legacy to QUEMADA would collide with the provision of
the National Internal Revenue Code requiring payment of estate tax before
delivery to any beneficiary of his distributive share of the estate.
4. The assailed order of execution was unauthorized, having been issued
purportedly under Rule 88, Section 6 of the Rules of Court which reads:
Sec. 6. Court to fix contributive shares where devisees, legatees, or heirs
have been in possession. — Where devisees, legatees, or heirs have entered
into possession of portions of the estate before the debts and expenses have
been settled and paid and have become liable to contribute for the payment
of such debts and expenses, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may,
by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of their several
liabilities, and order how much and in what manner each person shall
contribute, and may issue execution as circumstances require.
5. The above provision clearly authorizes execution to enforce payment of
debts of estate. A legacy is not a debt of the estate; indeed, legatees are
among those against whom execution is authorized to be issued.
6. Since the Probate Order was issued with grave abuse of discretion or was at
least at variance with the judgment sought to be enforced, Certiorari shall
lie.