JUAN DE BORJA, MARCELA DE BORJA, SATURNINA DE BORJA, EUFRACIA DE BORJA, CORA DE BORJA, AND OLIMPIA DE BORJA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RI…

Before Us is a motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Crisanto de Borja praying that
our decision ren­dered in this case “be reconsidered and modified such
that the sale of whatever rights, interest and participation of respondent CRISANTO DE BORJA which may
be adjudicated to him as a result of the final settlement of the estates, be
made only after orders for distribution in both special proceedings shall have
been issued, and that delivery thereof be effected in the manner provided by
Section 9, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court”.

The pertinent portions of our decision read as follows:

“It is a fact that whatever rights, interest and participation
Crisanto de Borja has in
certain real properties under judicial administration in Special Proceedings
Nos. F-7866 and 1955 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, were properly levied
upon pursuant to the writ of execution issued by said court in Civil Case No.
2414.  On the other hand, it is beyond question that such rights,
interest and participation are subject to attachment and/or levy in execution
in accord­ance with Section 9, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.  The question to be resolved here is whether
or not, after the attachment or levy in execution, the rights, interest and
participation of Crisanto de Borja
in the estate left by de­cedents Josefa Tangco and Francisco de Borja may
be sold at public auction to satisfy the money judgment rendered against him.

“The above question, in our opinion, must be answered in the
affirmative, provided it is understood that the sale shall be only of what­ever
rights, interest and participation may be adjudicated to said heir as a result
of the final settlement of the estates, and that delivery thereof to the
judgment creditor or to the purchaser at the public sale thereof shall be made
only after the final settlement of the estates in the manner provided by the
legal provision mentioned above.

“WHEREFORE, modifying and/or clarifying the appealed order in
the manner stated in the next preceding paragraph, judgment is hereby rendered
directing the respondent court to proceed accordingly.  Without costs.”

Respondent’s contention
that the sale of whatever rights, interest and participation he might have in
the estates under judicial
administration in Special Proceed­ings Nos. 7866 and 1955 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal may be made only
after orders for distribution in both special proceedings shall have been issued is un­tenable.

In Gotuaco
and Co., vs. Register of Deeds of Tayabas, 59 Phil.
756, We held that the participation of an heir in an
estate under judicial administration, albeit indeter­minable before the final
liquidation of the estate, may be attached and sold.

In Jacosalem vs. Rafols
et al., 73 Phil. 628, We likewise held that while ordinary execution of property in custodia
legis is prohibited in order to avoid interference
with the possession by the court, yet, the sale made by an heir of his share in
an inheritance, subject to the result of the pending administration, in no wise
stands in the way of such administration and is, there­fore, valid, with the
understanding, however, that it would be effective only as to the portion to be
adjudicated to the vendor upon the partition of the property under administration.

From the foregoing
it is clear that whatever
rights, interest and participation belong to respondent Crisanto
de Borja in the real properties under judicial
administration in the special
proceedings mentioned heretofore – which have been properly levied upon
pursuant to a writ of execu­tion issued
in Civil Case No. 2414 – may be sold in accordance with law, with the
understanding that the sale is not of any definite and fixed share in any
particular property, but only of what might be adjudicated to said respondent
upon the final liquidation of the estates already mentioned.  The sale, once made, shall be submitted to
the probate court with jurisdiction over the aforesaid special proceedings for
proper consideration upon the final liquidation of said estates.

WHEREFORE,
the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Makalintal, Bengzon,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Reyes, J.,
on official leave absence.