Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1933 > September 1933 Decisions > G.R. No. 39955 September 18, 1933 - ANGELES TAPIA VIUDA DE JONES v. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, ET AL.

058 Phil 411:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 39955. September 18, 1933.]

ANGELES TAPIA VIUDA DE JONES, judicial administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased, Walter E. Jones, Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, and E. E. ELSER, Respondents.

Manuel Escudero, for Petitioner.

John R. McFie, Jr,. for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. DEBTORS AND CREDITORS; CLAIMS AGAINST HEREDITARY ESTATE; PAYMENT OF A CLAIM ORDERED BY A JUDGE IN AN INDEPENDENT CASE. — The dividend distributable among the creditors of the intestate estate had already been fixed by the probate court within the intestate proceedings and, under such circumstance, the respondent judge in an independent civil case had jurisdiction and could properly compel the petitioner herein to comply with the order issued in the special proceedings. Wherefore, the respondent judge did nothing more than to enforce the probate court’s order relative to the distribution of funds instead of issuing a writ of execution in the civil case decided in favor of the other respondent herein. The petition for a writ of certiorari is hereby denied.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


In this original petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner herein, in her capacity as judicial administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased, Walter E. Jones, seeks to annul and set aside the order of the respondent judge, reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"After considering the plaintiff’s motion dated June 7, 1933, and in view of the reasons therein stated, the administratrix is hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiff 17.7 per cent of the amount of the judgment rendered in his favor on September 8, 1932, within the non- extendible period of three (3) days from date of receipt of a copy of this order; otherwise she shall be declared in contempt of court. So ordered.

"Pasig, Rizal, June 30, 1933.

" (Sgd.) FRANCISCO ZANDUETA

"Judge"

In the aforementioned intestate proceedings, docketed as case No. 4339 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a committee on claims was appointed before which the herein respondent, E. E. Elser, presented his claim amounting to P23,444.76. Inasmuch as his claim was disallowed, he appealed and instituted civil case No. 4876. In the latter case, judgment was rendered in favor of the respondent and against the intestate estate for the sum of P8,348.26, with interest thereon and the costs. The judgment became final. In the intestate proceedings, many creditors presented claims, aggregating about P174,000. Some claims have already been allowed while others were either pending resolution by the committee on claims, or on appeal pending decision by the court. The respondent’s claim was among those last mentioned. Inasmuch as the petitioner in her capacity as administratrix had not sufficient funds to pay all the claims allowed and contingent, the court appointed a commission composed of Attorneys Escudero, O’Brien, McFie, Jr., and Alikpala, to determine the amount of the funds under administration, the amount of all the claims of every nature, and the dividend to be paid out of said funds. The committee thus appointed submitted its report wherein it was stated that the administratrix had in her hands available funds amounting to P32,924.19; that, of this amount, P13,170.15 should be distributed among the creditors whose claims have been allowed and that the sum of P18,589.46 should be held by the administratrix to be paid at the proper time to the creditors whose claims were still pending before the committee on claims or on appeal before the court. These sums represented a distributable dividend of 17.7 per cent. The court approved the report and ordered the administratrix to act in accordance therewith. Sometime later, three preferred creditors whose claims amounted to P11,300 appeared in the intestate proceedings and asked that their preferred claims be paid. The administratrix, by order of the court, paid the said preferred claims out of the funds reserved for the payment of the other contingent claims. After making these last payments, there still remained in the hands of the administratrix-petitioner, for the same purpose, the sum of P8,454.04 to be distributed on the basis of a 17.7 per cent dividend among the creditors with contingent claims. At this juncture, the respondent creditor filed several motions urging payment by the petitioner of his claim which had already been determined, in the proportion mentioned above, and inasmuch as the petitioner herein resorted to subterfuges to avoid payment thereof, he finally filed another motion praying that the aforesaid petitioner be declared in contempt of court for refusing to pay him the aforementioned dividend. Accordingly, the court issued the order appealed from compelling the petitioner herein to pay the dividend in question within three days, otherwise she would be punished for contempt.

The petitioner herein contends that the order in question, dated June 30, 1933, is null and void on the ground that it was entered in civil case No. 4876 and that the respondent judge who issued it was not sitting as a probate judge. Consequently, she argues that such order could only be entered by the probate judge who took cognizance of special proceedings No. 4339. We hold that such contention is unfounded and untenable inasmuch as the dividend distributable among the creditors, one of whom is the respondent Elser, had already been fixed by the probate court within the intestate proceedings and, under such circumstances, the respondent judge in an independent civil case had jurisdiction and could properly compel the petitioner to comply with what had been ordered in the course of the said special proceedings. It is obvious that the respondent judge has done nothing more than to enforce the judgment rendered by the probate court relative to the distribution of funds, instead of issuing a writ of execution in the civil case decided in favor of the other respondent herein.

The petitioner alleges that after paying the three preferred claims, the balance she had on hand was not sufficient to pay the dividend corresponding to the respondent’s claim, and she also claims that she was under no obligation to comply with the order in question on the ground that she has filed a new motion in the intestate proceedings praying that a readjustment be made for the purpose of determining the dividend to be paid to the remaining creditors. These allegations are likewise unfounded, first, because the last petition filed by her has not yet been favorably acted upon in the intestate proceedings and, second, because it is an undisputed fact that even after the payment of the three preferred claims, there still remain in her possession funds of the administration amounting to P8,454.04, which sum is more than sufficient to pay the 17.7 per cent dividend of the respondent’s claim or credit.

Wherefore, the petition for a writ of certiorari is hereby denied, with the costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos and Hull, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1933 Jurisprudence                 

  • C. E. PIATT v. PERFECTO ABORDO September 1, 1933 - 058 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 38561 September 5, 1933 - FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ v. PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC.

    058 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 37850 September 6, 1933 - MAN SHUNG LOONG CO., ET AL. v. MELECIO FABROS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. 40235 September 6, 1933 - MARIANO CU UNJIENG, ET AL. v. JUAN POSADAS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 360

  • JOSE R. PAÑGANIBAN v. ELIAS BORROMEO September 9, 1933 - 058 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 40133 September 12, 1933 - ROBERT B. VAN STAVERN v. PEDRO MA. SISON, ET AL.

    058 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 39925 September 14, 1933 - VALENTIN MONTOJO v. CEFERINO HILARIO, ET AL.

    058 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 39929 September 14, 1933 - AGAPITO RAMOS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 40054 September 14, 1933 - LA GRANJA, INC. v. FELIX SAMSON, ET AL.

    058 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 38190 September 15, 1933 - MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC. v. FRANCISCO JAVIER

    058 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. 38286 September 15, 1933 - MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC. v. FAUSTO BARREDO

    058 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 38621 September 15, 1933 - EULALIO POSAS v. TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    058 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 38715 September 15, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN NOYNAY, ET AL.

    058 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 38814 September 15, 1933 - METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    058 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 39453 September 15, 1933 - METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    058 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 37265 September 18, 1933 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CHAN QUAN PANG, ET AL.

    058 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 38614 September 18, 1933 - MIGUEL R. MATEO v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    058 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 39955 September 18, 1933 - ANGELES TAPIA VIUDA DE JONES v. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, ET AL.

    058 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 37046 September 19, 1933 - IÑIGO S. DAZA v. FELISA TOMACRUZ, ET AL.

    058 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 37310 September 19, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO DAZO, ET AL.

    058 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 37386 September 19, 1933 - ANDRES JAYME v. BUALAN

    058 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 38435 September 19, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO ORONGAN, ET AL.

    058 Phil 426

  • G.R. Nos. 39609 & 39643-39649 September 20, 1933 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CATALINO BALAGTAS

    058 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 36602 September 22, 1933 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. PAZ repuLOPEZ MANZANO VIUDA DE PARDO DE TAVERA

    058 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 37206 September 22, 1933 - CU UNJIENG E HIJOS v. MABALACAT SUGAR COMPANY, ET AL.

    058 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 37874 September 22, 1933 - BRAULIO BALAGTAS ET AL. v. CIRIACA ARGUELLES

    058 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 38050 September 22, 1933 - TIBURCIA MANAHAN v. ENGRACIA MANAHAN

    058 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 39260 September 23, 1933 - JOSE P. BANZON, ET AL. v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

    058 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 40368 September 23, 1933 - ANACLETO PIIT v. VICENTE B. DE LARA

    058 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 36911 September 25, 1933 - AURELIA CONTUAN v. FORTUNATA RAMIREZ

    058 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 38884 September 26, 1933 - PACIFICO ABAD ET AL. v. JUAN N. EVANGELISTA

    058 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 37078 September 27, 1933 - ENRIQUE MONSERRAT v. CARLOS G. CERON, ET AL.

    058 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 37706 September 27, 1933 - CU UNJIENG E HIJOS v. L. P. MITCHELL

    058 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 38284 September 27, 1933 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG, ET AL. v. LEONARD S. GODDARD, ET AL.

    058 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 38316 September 27, 1933 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG, ET AL. v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, ET AL.

    058 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 39085 September 27, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO YABUT

    058 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 39562 September 27, 1933 - JUAN L. ORBETA v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

    058 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. 37125 September 30, 1933 - MARIA ARRIETE v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 507