Salvador Vs Sta Maria

[G.R. No. L-25952. June 30, 1967.
MARGARITA SALVADOR, in her own behalf and as Attorney-in-fact of CANDIDA

SALVADOR, ET AL., Petitioners, v. THE HON. JUDGE ANDRES STA. MARIA,
DOMINADOR CARDENAS, REMEDIOS CABRERA, ALBERTO M.K. JAMIR and
SIMEON ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.
Arturo A. Joaquin for Petitioner.
Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for Respondents.
Simeon V . Enriquez for his own behalf.
Besa, Galang, Jimenez & Magtalas for PNB.
SYLLABUS
1. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS; DISTRIBUTION AND

PARTITION OF ESTATE; RIGHT OF HEIRS TO SPECIFIC, DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES. — It
is a settled point of law that the right of heirs to specific, distributive shares of inheritance does
not become finally determinable until all the debts of the estate are paid. Until then, in the face of
said claims, their rights cannot be enforced, are inchoate, and subject to the existence of a residue
after payment of the debts. (Castellvi de Raquiza v. Castellvi, L-17630, October 31, 1963;
Jimoga-on v. Belmonte, 84 Phil., 545; Sec. 1, Rule 90, Rules of Court).
2. ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF HEIRS AFTER ESTATE HAS BEEN RECONVEYED TO THEM;
DEBTS, LIABILITY TO. — The fact that the properties involved were reconveyed to the heirs
by Court’s order, the same did not become the exclusive properties of the said heirs. They
received the said properties in trust for the estate, subject to its obligations. They cannot
distribute said properties among themselves as substituted heirs without the debts of the estate
being first satisfied.
DECISION
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
Seven parcels of titled land and two parcels of untitled land, situated in Bigaa, Bulacan, were
owned by Celestino Salvador. In 1941, he executed a deed of sale over them in favor of the
spouses Alfonso Salvador and Anatolia Halili. Alleging that the sale was void for lack of
consideration, he filed on May 12, 1955, against said vendees, a suit for reconveyance of said
parcels of land (CFI of Bulacan, Br. I, Civil Case No. 1082).
On April 27, 1956, Celestino Salvador died, testate. As his alleged heirs, twenty-one persons 1
were on May 18, 1956 substituted as plaintiffs in the action for reconveyance. And meanwhile,
special proceedings for the probate of his will and for letters testamentary was instituted (CFI of
Bulacan, Br. II, Sp. Proceedings No. 940). In said proceedings, Dominador Cardenas was
appointed on June 11, 1956 special administrator of Celestino Salvador’s testate estate.
On September 4, 1956 the administrator filed in Sp. Proceedings No. 940 an inventory of
properties of the estate, covering the same parcels of land subject matter of the reconveyance
action. On September 7, 1956, Celestino Salvador’s will was admitted to probate and Dominador
Cardenas was appointed executor of said will. Actual issuance of letters testamentary to him was
made on October 27, 1956.
Twenty-three (23) persons were instituted heirs in the will. Of these, nine (9) were not among the
twenty-one (21) alleged relatives substituted in the reconveyance case; and of the twenty-one
(21) substituted alleged heirs, seven (7) were not instituted in the will. 2
In the suit for reconveyance, on November 26, 1956, the Court (CFI of Bulacan, Br I) rendered
judgment, ordering the defendants therein (the spouses Alfonso and Anatolia), to reconvey the
parcels of land to the estate of Celestino Salvador. Appeal therefrom to the Court of Appeals was
interposed by said defendants.
On August 12, 1961, the Court of Appeals affirmed the reconveyance judgment, with the
correction that reconveyance be in favor of the twenty-one (21) heirs substituted as plaintiffs
therein.
About three years later, pursuant to an order of the CFI of Bulacan, Br. II, in the testacy
proceedings, dated April 21, 1964, one of the parcels of land involved, Lot 6, was sold so that
with its proceeds debtors who filed claims may be paid. The Philippine National Bank bought it
at P41,184.00. Said amount was then deposited in the same bank by the administrator, subject to
court order.
On December 18, 1964, defendants in the suit for reconveyance executed a deed of reconveyance
over the subject parcels of land, in favor of Celestino Salvador’s estate. Revoking the same as
not in accordance with the judgment therein, the CFI of Bulacan, Br. I, on September 24, 1965,
ordered a new deed of reconveyance to be executed, in favor of the twenty-one persons
substituted as plaintiffs in that action. Accordingly, on September 30, 1965, a new deed of
reconveyance was made, in favor of said twenty-one (21) persons as heirs of Celestino.
Following this, on November 22, 1965, said Br. I, ordered the corresponding title certificate
(TCT No. 54639) in the administrator’s name, cancelled; new title certificate to be issued in the
names of the same twenty-one (21) persons. Said order was carried out, and TCT No. 63734 was
issued in the names of the twenty-one persons. 3
On December 7, 1965, Br. I (reconveyance court) ordered the Philippine National Bank to
release the P41,184.00 proceeds of the sale of Lot 6, to the twenty-one (21) plaintiffs in the
reconveyance case. Apparently, although the passbook was given by the administrator to said
twenty-one persons, no release was made, as the Philippine National Bank awaited Br. II’s order.
Br. II, on March 1, 1966, approved the following claims against the estate: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Taxes — Nat’l. Gov’t. P 5,328.23
Atty’s fees — Atty. Enriquez P 8,000.00
Atty’s fees — Atty. Jamir P12,000.00
Loan — R. Cabrera P13,544.35
—————
T O T A L P33,872.58
==========
On March 30, 1966, said Br. II (probate court), ordered return of the passbook to the
administrator; and release to the administrator by the PNB of the P41,184.00, or so much thereof
as needed to pay the afore- stated debts of the estate.
After failing to get reconsideration of said order, the twenty- one (21) substituted heirs, on April
25, 1966, filed with Us the present special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction
to assail the order to pay the debts of the estate with the P41,184.00 proceeds of the sale of Lot 6;
and to question Br. II’s (probate court) power to dispose of the parcels of land involved in the
reconveyance suit in Br. I.
Raised are these issues: (1) Are the parcels of land and the proceeds of the sale of one of them,
properties of the estate or not? (2) Does final judgment in the reconveyance suit in favor of the
twenty-one so-called heirs who substituted Celestino Salvador, bar the disposition of the
reconveyed properties by the settlement court?
It is a settled point of law that the right of heirs to specific distributive shares of inheritance does
not become finally determinable until all the debts of the estate are paid. Until then, in the face of
said claims, their rights cannot be enforced, are inchoate, and subject to the existence of a residue
after payment of the debts (Castellvi de Raquiza v. Castellvi, L-17630, October 31, 1963;
Jimoga-on v. Belmonte, 84 Phil. 545; Sec. 1, Rule 90, Rules of Court).
Petitioners do not question the existence of the debts abovementioned. They only contend that
the properties involved having been ordered by final judgment reconveyed to them, not to the
estate, the same are not properties of the estate but their own, and thus, not liable for debts of the
estate.
Said contention is self-refuting. Petitioners rely for their rights on their alleged character as heirs
of Celestino; as such, they were substituted in the reconveyance case; the reconveyance to them
was reconveyance to them as heirs of Celestino Salvador. It follows that the properties they
claim are, even by their own reasoning, part of Celestino’s estate. Their right thereto as allegedly
his heirs would arise only if said parcels of land are part of the estate of Celestino, not otherwise.
Their having received the same, therefore, in the reconveyance action, was perforce in trust for
the estate, subject to its obligations. They cannot distribute said properties among themselves as
substituted heirs without the debts of the estate being first satisfied.
At any rate, the proceeds of Lot 6 alone (P41,184.00) appears more than sufficient to pay the
debt (P38,872.58) and there will remain the other parcels of land not sold. As to the question of
who will receive how much as heirs, the same is properly determinable by the settlement court,
after payment of the debts (Pimentel v. Palanca, 5 Phil. 436; Maniñgat v. Castillo, 75 Phil. 532;
Jimoga-on v. Belmonte, supra).
Wherefore, the petition for Certiorari is denied, without costs. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J .B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Salvador Vs Sta Maria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salvador Vs Sta Maria

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salvador Vs Sta Maria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. L-25952. June 30, 1967.

MARGARITA SALVADOR, in her own behalf and as Attorney-in-fact of CANDIDA

Arturo A. Joaquin for Petitioner.

Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for Respondents.

Simeon V . Enriquez for his own behalf.

Besa, Galang, Jimenez & Magtalas for PNB.

1. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS; DISTRIBUTION AND

BENGZON, J.P., J.:

Taxes — Nat’l. Gov’t. P 5,328.23

Atty’s fees — Atty. Enriquez P 8,000.00

Atty’s fees — Atty. Jamir P12,000.00

Loan — R. Cabrera P13,544.35

Wherefore, the petition for Certiorari is denied, without costs. So ordered.

You might also like