INTESTATE ESTATE OF SPOUSES IGNACIA MENDOZA AND GO TUANA, DECEASED. JOSE ARSENAL GO, PETITIONER, ADMINISTRATOR AND APPELLEE, VS. GO TUANA AND IGNACIA MENDOZA, MOVANTS AND APPELL…

Appellee herein, Jose Arsenal Go, is the administrator of the intestate
estate of the spouses Go Tuana and Ignacia Mendoza, pending judicial settlement
in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Sp. Proc. No. 233-V. On March 3, 1956,
upon motion of some of the heirs, now appellants, the court issued the following
order:

“Acting upon the motion of the heirs and considering that the administrator
has realized the sum of P1,500.00 from the sale of a parcel of land to Mr.
Tereso Dumon and the additional sum of P9,000.00 out of the sale of sugar quota
belonging to the estate to Mr. Maximino Dublin the said administrator is hereby
ordered to deposit the said amount with the Philippine National Bank under a
Savings Account Deposit in the name of the Intestate Estate Go Tuana and Ignacia
Mendoza, in his capacity as administrator, deducting therefrom the amount
already delivered by him to the several heirs, to wit:

	Adelino Go ……………………………………………………………………….	P1,000.00
	Federico Go ……………………………………………………………………..	1,000.00
	Mrs. Pacita G. Almirante ……………………………………………………….	1,000.00
	Miss Luz Go ……………………………………………………………………..	360.00

within five days from this date. The administrator is also ordered to deposit
in the saving account deposit any other sum of money that may be in his
possession belonging to the estate within the same period of time. No withdrawal
from said deposit shall be made by the administrator without the approval of
this Court.

The administrator is hereby notified of this order in open
Court.”

On January 2, 1957 appellants filed a motion to hold the administrator in
contempt for having failed to make the deposit required in the aforequoted order
and for having made disbursements of funds without previous approval by the
court. A memorandum supplementing the motion for contempt was filed on February
2, 1957, making reference to the statement of accounts of the administrator
covering the period from January 1 to December 3, 1956, to show that as of March
3 of that year there was considerable cash in his hands which he was supposed
to, but did not, deposit.

The administrator presented his opposition to the motion for contempt. His
explanation therein, which the Court found to be satisfactory, is summarized in
its order of May 27, 1957, which reads as follows:

“This is a motion filed by the heirs of Go Tuana and Ignacia Mendoza to have
the administrator punished for contempt. It is alleged that as of March 3, 1956,
there was cash in the possession of the administrator in the amount of P2,350.70
which the administrator failed to deposit in the bank in contravention of the
order of this Court dated March 3, 1956.

In his opposition to the motion, the administrator, however, claimed that, in
compliance with the order of the Court dated March 3, 1956, he deposited with
the Philippine National Bank the sum of P500.00 on March 22, 1956 as shown in
the Savings Account Book No. 37964. The administrator further explained that the
only lump sums received by the administrator prior to March 3, 1956, were the
proceeds of the sale of 2 parcels of land to Mr. Tereso Dumon in the amount of
P1,500.00, and the sugar quota to Mr. Maximo Dublin in the sum of P9,000.00. In
his explanation, the administrator has shown that out of the sale of the lands
to Mr. Tereso Dumon, a total sum of P900.00 was disbursed to the heirs and the
balance of P600.00 was expended in accordance with the statement appearing in
the reports of income and expenses.

With reference to the proceeds of the sale of the sugar quota to Maximo
Dublin for P9,000.00, the administrator has shown that he had disbursed
therefrom the total sum of P7,000.00 which was given to the heirs at the rate of
P1,000.00 each, together with the payment of the inheritance and estate taxes
and miscellaneous expenses in the sum of P2,000.00. The administrator explained
that actually at the time the Court issued its order dated March 3, 1956, the
only amount left in the hands of the administrator was the sum of P500.00 which
has been deposited in the bank as aforestated. After considering the explanation
of the administrator, the Court finds same satisfactory.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the motion to punish the administrator for contempt of
Court is hereby denied. However, the administrator is hereby ordered to include
in the new report of accounts which he is to submit on (sic) directed in a
separate order of even date the above-mentioned income and expenses, duly
supported by receipts and/or vouchers.”

The movants appealed from the foregoing order to the Court of Appeals, which
certified the appeal to us on the ground that only questions of law are involved
since no evidence was adduced below, the arguments in support of the errors
assigned being based merely on data disclosed in the motion for contempt itself,
in appellee’s opposition thereto and on the reports of accounts submitted by him
to and still pending approval by the court.

The order of March 3, 1956 upon which the charge of contempt is predicated
covers two items which appellee was required to deposit: (1) the proceeds of two
sales, one of a parcel of land in the sum of P1,500.00 and the other of certain
sugar quota in the sum of P9,000.00, after deducting the amounts delivered to
the heirs; and (2) any other sum of money belonging to the estate in the
possession of appellee.

With respect to the first item the explanation of appellee is that of the
proceeds of the two sales P7,900.00 was delivered to the heirs, among them
appellants themselves, and P2,000.00 was paid for inheritance and estate taxes
and other miscellaneous expenses. The balance of P600.00 was spent “in
accordance with the statement appearing in the reports of income and expenses,”
which appellee, however, was ordered by the court to justify by submitting the
corresponding receipts and vouchers. We do not see that the court erred in
considering that appellee’s explanation in so far as this item is concerned was
satisfactory. All these disbursements are shown in his reports for 1955 and
1956, respectively. Also shown in said reports are appellee’s other receipts and
expenses, both before and after the order of March 3, 1956. It might be true
that he did not follow strictly the terms of said order, as in failing to
deposit in the bank, for instance, the cash on hand as of December 31, 1955 (see
statement of accounts for 1056), which appears to be in the sum of P4,209.78.
But since the said sum, as well as other sums received thereafter, are duly
accounted for in the same statement, the motion for contempt was at best
premature and appellee’s liability on that charge, if any, should await the
result of the hearing for the approval of said accounts. In any case, his
exoneration from the charge did not carry with it an implied approval of these
accounts, concerning which proper punitive or corrective action might still be
taken after the hearing and reception of evidence.

The order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.