TESTAMENTARY ESTATE OF THE DECEASED FERNANDO C. TOLEDO. MARIA JINGCO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. DOROTEA DALUZ, ADMINISTRATRIX AND APPELLANT.

By resolution dated January 9, 1950, the court of first instance
of Pampanga approved the second amended project of partition submitted
by the administratrix, Dorotea Daluz, in Sp. Prec. No. 62, Testamentary
Estate of the deceased Fernando C. Toledo. That project awarded to his
widow, Maria Jingco “one half (½) of all war-damage payments received or
to be received from the United States-Philippines War Damage Commission
payable to the estate of the deceased either it be the widow or the
administratrix who already received or shall receive said payments.”

On August 23, 1950 Maria Jingco filed, in the case, a motion
alleging that on July 19, 1950 the War-Damage Commission had handed to
Dorotea Daluz for the Estate of Fernando Toledo a partial payment in the
amount of P10,057.78, and that the administratrix had failed to give
unto her one half of such payment in accordance with the project of
partition already approved by the court.

After hearing the parties and perusing various pleadings
opposing or supporting the widow’s petition, the court issued the
following order:

“De los escritos presentados por la administradora se
desprende que existen aun reclamaciones de los terracenientes de
Fernando C. Toledo que, segun dicna adminstradora tienen derecho a
recibir parte de la mancionada “war damage claim” que la administracion
podria recibir del “U. S.- Philippine War Damage Commission.” En vista
de que dichas reclamaciones de los terratenientes no se han presentado
debidamente hasta la fecha a este juzgado, si realmante las mismas
tienen algun merito, el Juzgado ordena a la administradora que deposite
en este Juzgado la suma de P10,057.78 que ella habia recibido del “U.
S.- Philippine War Damage Commission” a nombre de la administracion; y,
una vez depositada dicha contidad, se autoriza al abogado Filemon
Cajator para que cabre el cinco por ciento sobre la misma que, segun
ley, deberia pertenecerla por haber confaccionado los papeles de
reclamacion al “War Damage Commission”; y que la mitad del remanente,
despues de deducidos los honorarios del citado abogado Cajator, se
reparte en dos partes iguales, debiendo la administradora Dorotea Daluz
entragar una parte a la viuda Maria Jingco, y la otra a los herederos
del cifunto Fernando C. Toledo; entendiendose que la cantidad remanente
no se tocara por las partes hasta que se decidan las reclamaciones de
los terratenientes.”

Her motion for reconsideration having been denied, the
administratrix brought the matter directly to this Court.

In her first assignment of error, she maintains no evidence was
presented to show that she had actually received P10,057.78 from the
War-Damage Commission as administratrix of the Estate.

This assignment has no merit, as the letter of the Philippine
War-Damage Commission, Annex A, reveals. And, what is conclusive, she
never denied the truth of Maria Jingco’s allegations particularly,

“3. That by a letter dated August 15, 1950, the
Philippine War Damage Commission informed the herein petitioner that the
war damage claim of the “Estate of the Deceased Fernando Toledo” has
been approved in the amount of P31,192.66, and a partial payment in the
amount of P10,057.78 was made to Dorotea Daluz on July 19, 1950, as
administratrix of the Testate Estate of Fernando Toledo, deceased.”

Next, the appellant argues in her second assignment, that inasmuch
as the project of partition had not adjudicated to the widow any
specific sum of money, the court possessed no authority to direct
payment to her. The reply is that the partition had awarded to Maria
Jingco one half of “all war-damage payments received or to be
received”, and the P10,057.78 was received subsequently to the
partition as war-damage payment. Under the terms of that partition
Maria Jingco was entitled to her half of such war-damage compensation.

This brings up the appellant’s third argument, which is founded
on the proposition that the probate court lost all jurisdiction after
its approval, in January 1950, of the second amended project of
partition. The argument we believe, was correctly answered by the Hon.
Froilan Bayona, Judge, as follows:

“As to the lack of jurisdiction of this Court to issue the
aforementioned order of October 19, 1950 after the approval by this
Court of the second project of partition of January 9, 1950, this Court
has deemed it appropriate to cite hereunder the last paragraph of the
said resolution of this Court of January 9, 1950 approving the second
project of partition submitted by the parties in this case, to wit:

x x x x x x

“It is clear from the above-quoted portion of the resolution of
the Court of January 9, 1950 that his testate proceedings shall be
considered closed as soon as the administratrix Dorotea Daluz shall have
filed before this Court evidence showing delivery by her of the shares
of the properties of the late Fernando C. Toledo to his heirs as well as
the payment of all inheritance taxes on the estate as required by law.
And as part of the was damage payment, evidenced by the letter of the
Secretary of the Philippine War Damage Commission of August 15, 1950,
Annex “A”, to the losses on the property of the deceased Fernando C.
Toledo, specially the one-half (½) pertaining to his widow Maria Jingco,
as prescribed in the said second project of partition, and the
inheritance and estate taxes on the properties to the government have as
yet been effected by the administratrix as no proof thereof has been
submitted to this court, this Court is of the opinion that this testate
proceedings has not as yet been terminated and consequently this Court
has not as yet lost jurisdiction over the same.”

There is no mere that superficial cleverness in appellant’s
contention that the widow’s share under the partition was only a chose
in action, i.e., the right to sue and recover one half of the
war-damage, and that the partition awarded her no specific moneys, of
which the court could compel delivery. The undeniable fact is that
Clause 4 of the approved project (hereinabove quoted) expressly gave her
a moiety of whatever moneys have been or shall be received from
the War-Damage Commission. As money was subsequently received, the
court did right in requiring delivery of her share, the administratrix
being constantly and completely under the jurisdiction and control of
the probate court, and the Rules permitting the heirs to “demand and
recover their respective shares from the executor or administrator”
(Rule 91, Sec. 1) in the same testamentary proceedings, a separate civil
action for that purpose being obviously unnecessary (De Jesus v.
Daza 43 Off. Gaz. 2055).

WHEREFORE, no prejudicial error showing, the appealed order is
affirmed with costs.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo
and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

Labrador, J., no part.