CARMEN ADRIANO, PETITIONER, VS. ALFREDO OBLEADA, TEODORICA MARIANO, NATALIA AREVALO VIUDA DE LOPEZ, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARIANO LOPEZ, AND PEDRO MA. SISON, JUDGE OF …

In
this original petition for a writ of mandamus filed against Pedro Ma.
Sison, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Alfredo Obleada,
Teodorica Mariano and Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez as administratrix
of the testamentary estate of Mariano Lopez, the petitioner herein,
Carmen Adriano, for reasons alleged in her petition, prays that a writ
of mandamus be issued against the respondent judge to compel him to
permit her to intervene in civil case No. 44327 of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, entitled “Alfredo Obleada et al., vs. Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez.”

The following relevant facts are necessary for the solution of the questions raised in the instant case:

The petitioner, Carmen Adriano, is the deceased Mariano Lopez’s
surviving mother whom, under his will, he has instituted his heiress
entitled to receive two thirds of his estate.

After the
deceased Mariano Lopez’s will had been admitted to probate and the
corresponding committee on claims and appraisal appointed, the herein
respondents, Alfredo Obleada and Teodorica Mariano, presented before
said committee their claim consisting in a credit amounting to P4,750
alleged to be the unpaid balance of a promissory note for P5,000 signed
by the deceased Mariano Lopez and his wife, Natalia Arevalo Vda. de
Lopez, the herein respondent. Inasmuch as their claim was disallowed by
the aforementioned committee on claims and appraisal, the
creditor-claimants, Alfredo Obleada and Teodorica Mariano, appealed
from the committee’s adverse resolution and filed in the Court of First
Instance of Manila the corresponding action against Natalia Arevalo
Vda. de Lopez, as administratrix of the estate of the deceased, Mariano
Lopez, for the recovery of the said sum of P4,750 representing the
unpaid balance of the promissory note for P5,000, signed by the
deceased Mariano Lopez and his wife Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez, one
of the herein respondents. The promissory note in question was
reproduced by the creditor-claimants in their complaint which was
registered as civil case No. 44327.

The defendant, Natalia
Arevalo Vda. de Lopez, as administratrix of the estate of the deceased,
Mariano Lopez, filed an answer denying generally and specifically the
facts alleged in the complaint.

The petitioner, Carmen
Adriano, as heiress, instituted by the deceased Mariano Lopez under his
will, filed a motion in the court praying that she be permitted to
intervene in the aforementioned civil case No. 44327, alleging that she
had a legal interest in the case; that the promissory note upon which
the alleged creditor-claimants, Alfredo Obleada and Teodorica Mariano,
base their claim is fictitious; that the said promissory note is
without consideration, and that it was obtained through fraud, in
connivance with the defendant, Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez.

The respondent judge denied the motion for intervention. Not being
satisfied with the denial, the herein petitioner has instituted the
present proceedings alleging as her ground that, in denying her motion,
the respondent judge has committed an abuse of discretion.

Section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the following:

“Sec. 121. Intervention.—A
person may, at any period of a trial, upon motion, be permitted by the
court to intervene in an action or proceeding, if he has legal interest
in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the
parties, or an interest against both. Such intervening party may be
permitted to join the plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the
claimant, or to unite with the defendant in resisting the claims of the
plaintiff, or to demand anything adverse to both the plaintiff and
defendant. Such intervention, if permitted by the court, shall be made
by complaint in regular form, filed in court, and may be answered or
demurred to as if it were an original complaint. Notice of motion for
such intervention shall be given to all parties to the action, and
notice may be given by publication, in accordance with the provisions
of this Code relating to publication, in cases where other notice is
impracticable.”

The first question to
decide in the present case is whether or not the petitioner herein has
a legal interest in the payment of the balance of the promissory note
which is the subject matter of the action in which she seeks permission
to intervene.

If the promissory note in question is declared
null and void, the amount thereof will form a part of the estate of the
deceased Mariano Lopez, by whom it had been executed. Therefore, the
herein petitioner, whom the said deceased, under his will, has
instituted heiress of two thirds of his hereditary estate, has a legal
interest in the case. If there was fraud in obtaining the promissory
note in question, as the herein petitioner alleges under oath, the fact
that it was executed by the deceased Mariano Lopez does not prevent his
heiress from impugning its validity in the same way that the signer
himself would not have been prevented from so doing under the same
circumstances. The petitioner herein having inherited the two-thirds
undivided portion of the estate left by the deceased, she has also
inherited all rights of action her predecessor in interest might have
had in the same property.

The second question to decide is
whether or not the petitioner herein, being an heiress instituted by
the deceased, Mariano Lopez, can intervene in the case, there being in
fact a judicial administratrix to represent the testamentary estate.

As a general rule, when there is an administrator who represents a
testamentary estate, he alone is authorized to defend the rights of the
deceased against any claim or action that might be brought against him
(sections 702, 705, 691, of Act No. 190). But when the administrator
appointed is careless or negligent in the performance of his duties, or
is inefficient, the heirs may intervene in order to protect the
deceased’s rights which had become theirs by inheritance.

In the case of Dais vs. Court of First Instance of Capiz, (51 Phil., 396), this court laid down the following rule:

“1.
Heirs; RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN AN ACTION INVOLVING INHERITANCE.—The heirs
have the right to intervene in an action involving some of the property
of the hæreditas jacens of a decedent when they believe that the acts of the judicial administrator are prejudicial to their interest.”

In the case at bar, the creditor-claimants have reproduced the
promissory note upon which they base their claim in the complaint
presented by them on appeal. In her answer to the complaint, the
defendant-administratrix, Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez, has done
nothing more than enter a general and specific denial of the material
allegations contained therein. She has not specifically denied under
oath the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note in
question, knowing as she should know that the failure to enter a denial
in the form indicated above is deemed an admission thereof (section
103, Act No. 190; Bough and Bough vs. Cantiveros and Hanopol,
40 Phil., 209). Neither has she interposed a special defense by
alleging fraud and lack of consideration in order to entitle her to
prove them during the trial (Garriz, Terren & Co. vs. North China Ins. Co., 44 Phil., 749; Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Laguna Coconut Oil Co., 48 Phil., 5).

Either because the administratrix, Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez, is in
connivance with the creditor-claimants, or because she is negligent in
protecting the interests of the testamentary estate she represents, the
petitioner herein has the right to intervene in order that those
interests may be the better protected. In denying her the permission to
intervene, which she seeks, the respondent judge committed an abuse of
discretion.

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are
of the opinion and so hold: (1) That an heir has a legal interest in
the result of a claim based upon a promissory note signed by his
predecessor in interest, alleged to have been obtained through fraud
and lack of consideration; (2) that when a judicial administrator of a
testamentary estate, who is made a party defendant in an action on
appeal for the recovery from the testator of a claim rejected by the
committee on claims and appraisal, does not interpose the necessary and
effective legal defense, the heirs have the right to intervene in order
to protect the deceased’s interests; and (3) that the judge who denies
the said heirs the permission to intervene, which they seek in such
cases, commits an abuse of discretion and may be compelled to grant
said authority through a writ of mandamus.

Wherefore, the
remedy applied for is hereby granted and the respondent judge is
ordered to permit the herein petitioner to intervene as a
party-defendant in the civil case No. 44327 of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, entitled Alfredo Obleada et al. vs. Natalia
Arevalo Vda. de Lopez, as administratrix of the testamentary estate of
Mariano Lopez, with costs against the respondents, Alfredo Obleada,
Teodorica Mariano and Natalia Arevalo Vda. de Lopez. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.