FLOREÑA TINAGAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO; TAN CHUY HO, ROSARIO GERALDE, ADELINA JUAN S. LOA AND ESTER H. JAMORA, RESPOND…

A petition for writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, with
preliminary injunction, to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo; on certiorari, to set aside the order,
dated July 22, 1964, directing the administrator of the estate of Jaime Siason, deceased, to sell at public auction a “two
storey building” included in the inventory of the property of the intestate
to pay the claims of creditors; on prohibition, to restrain the enforce­ment of
the aforesaid order; and, on mandamus,
to order the respondent Judge to approve and certify the record on appeal submitted
by the petitioner appealing from the aforesaid order of July 22, 1964.

The petition was given
due course, and the respondents were required to answer; however, the writs of
preliminary injunction was not granted.

The respondent Judge, in
his own behalf, filed an answer, and the private
respondents also filed a separate answer in their own behalf.

Culled from the
allegations in the petition and the answer, and the annexes
thereto, the following facts are not debated:

The petitioner and Jaime Siason had lived to­gether as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage.  They had four children.  When Jaime Siason
died, he was survived by the petitioner and their four children.  (The record does now show that the deceased was ever married to another
woman.) The property he had left was a
two storey building constructed on the land
of Ester H. Jamora.  Upon the institution of the intestate
proceedings of the estate of the deceased, Estelita Abucion was appointed administratrix.  On March 21, 1964, the court approved the
accounting sub­mitted by the administratrix, but at
the same time re­lived her of her position, and in her place, the court
appointed Atty. Julio Albis and Floreña
Tinagan co­-administrators of the estate.  Considering that the only property left by
the deceased and which was under administration was the aforesaid two storey
building, and none other, the record fails to disclose the reason and necessity
for the appointment of two administrators of the estate, unless it could be for
a reason, as discussed hereinafter, that Floreña Tina­gan was claiming
proprietary rights and interests or one-half of the building.  Be that as it may, the fact is,
however, that Albis
and Tinagan both quali­fied for the position.

As stated in the order of
July 22, 1964, the approved claims against the estate aggregates to P5,000.00, which fact, however, is disputed by Tina­gan,
contending that the proceedings leading to their approval by the court were irregular
and contrary to law.

The creditors of the
estate whose claims allegedly
had been approved by the court on July 9, 1964, filed a joint petition for the
payment of their claims, contending that as the estate had no funds with which
to pay their claims, it was necessary that the two storey buildings be sold at
public auction, and with the proceeds therefrom to
pay their claims.

Floreña Tinagan opposed
the petition, contend­ing that the alleged claims against the estate had not
been approved by the court, and, granting that there was an order of approval,
the proceedings lead­ing to such approval, was irregular, as there was no
notice to the interested parties; hence, the order is null and void.  She further specifically alleged that
“the one-half (1/2) undivided share of the building of strong materials
consisting of two stories, belongs to her by reason of the fact that the said
building was constructed thru the joint efforts, savings and industry of the
herein administratrix with the late Jaime Siason.”

After consideration by
the court of the joint petition of the creditors and the opposition thereto,
the court, on July 22, 1964, issued the disputed or­der.  While it is stated in the order that the
claims of the creditors against the estate had been approved by the court, that
the estate had no funds with which to pay the said claims, and that the only
income of the estate is that coming from the rental of the build­ing at the
rate of P175.00 a month which, on the other hand, is burdened with a charge for
the support of Ti­nagan and her minor children with
the deceased, however, the court failed to resolve the vital question posed by Tinagan, that one-half (1/2) of the building belongs to
her.  Nevertheless, in the answer of the
respondent Judge to the instant petition, the follow­ing is alleged:

“That he Denies all the averments contained in Paragraph 27 of
the Petition, the truth being that if Petitioner had ever any valid claim on
the only property of the deceased Jaime Siason, Sr. which was advertised for sale at public
auction to raise money to pay the creditors of the estate, said petitioner
should have filed a bond
“conditioned to pay the debts, expenses of administration, x x x within such time as the Court
directs; and such bond shall be for the
security of the creditors”
in accordance with Section 3, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court, or that she should have filed a
separate civil action in Court against Atty. Julio Albis,
an Administrator of the Estate, in accordance with Section 1 of Rule 87 of the
Rules of Court where the Court may issue an order enjoining the
sale of the house.  The claim of owner­ship
by the petitioner of one-half (1/2) of the house without any lien whatsoever –
free from taxes, free from paying rentals to the owner of the land where
it stands, free from paying the owner of the materials used in the construction
of the house, without defraying the
costs of repair – cannot be validly heard and decided by the Court in an intestate proceeding but in a
separate civil action.”

A reconsideration
of the order filed by Tinagan having been denied, she
perfected an appeal from the order and submitted in due time a record on
appeal and appeal bond of P120.00.

On July 29,
1964, the court
disapproved the re­cord on appeal.  The
order reads as follows:

“Considering that this case is under the joint administra­tion
of Julio Albis and Floreña Tinagan, the record on appeal filed by counsel, Atty.
German M. Lopez, for Floreña Tinagan,
is disapproved.  It is suggested that the joint administrators should be consulted in
all proceedings affecting this case.”

A perusal of the foregoing order would seem to suggest that the
record on appeal was disapproved be­cause the co-administrator Julio Albis has not given his conformity thereto, but not that
the record on appeal was either incomplete, defective or filed out of
time.  The subsequent order dated September 7, 1964, denying the
reconsideration of the disallow­ance of the record on appeal, confirms the
foregoing pronouncement.  The order reads
as follows:

“O R D E R

This refers to the motion for
reconsideration filed by Atty. German Lopez, as counsel of Floreñia
Tinagan, which the court only received on September 2, 1964.

Before this court ordered the sale of the property, Atty. Lopez was asked by
the creditors and by the Court as to how he could pay the accounts of the
estate, which have been approved by the Court and his plan of meeting the
obligations of the estate.  Atty. Lopez
informed the court that the accounts shall be paid out of the income of the
estate.  It has been established that the
income of the estate is very much less than the monthly allowances given to the
minor children, for the rental of the lot, etc. 
The only property of the estate is the house which in due time may lose
its value.  Hence, the
order of this court to sell the property for the best interest of the creditors
and the estate.

The court finds that all the actuations of Atty. Lopez have been
done without consulting the co-administrator of the estate who has an equal say
as regards
the administration of the estate.

Considering that the creditors in this proceedings should first be
fully paid of their claims before anything can be distributed to the heirs, and
con­sidering further that the actuations of Atty. German Lopez is not sanction
by Atty. Julio Albis, a co-administra­tor of the
estate, the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. German Lopez is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Iloilo City,
September 7, 1964.

(Sgd.) VALERIO V. ROVIRA”

Judge

In the meantime, on September 3, 1964, in compliance with the
orders of July 22, 1964 and August 8, 1964, the deputy clerk of court sold at
public auction the aforementioned two storey building for the sum of P7,500.00
(its appraised value was P10,450.00) to the Iloilo Chinese Commercial High
School, the highest bidder at the auction sale, and a certi­ficate of sale was
issued on the same date by the de­puty clerk of court in favor of the Iloilo Chinese Commercial High School.  (Vide, Exhibit V, p. 81, Rollo)

The foregoing facts clearly demonstrate that the writs of certiorari and prohibition have to be
denied for the reason than the issue or issues posed upon the facts in relation
to the order of July 22, 1964, have become functus
officio, inasmuch as the
sale of the property in question had become a consummated transaction and
constructive title to the property has been vested unto the vendee – the Iloilo
Chinese Commercial High School, and the petitioner has already perfected an
appeal from the order of July 22, 1964, which is the appropriate remedy.

“Orders in administration cases, as relate, for instance to
inventories, claims against the estate, and the sale of the property of
decedent, are appealable.” [See C. J. 569, 570, and notes; Reyes v.
Ciria (1913), 24 Phil. 127; Molera v. Molera,
40 Phil. 566.]

“To assail the
order of probate court to sell the property of a ward, appeal and not certiorari or mandamus is the proper remedy.” [86 Phil. 499]

“An order for a license to sell real estate in
administration proceedings, ordinarily, is in the nature of a judgment upon the
issues involved and an appeal may be
taken therefrom as in the case of any other
judgment.” [Santos v. Roman
Catholic Bishop of Nueva Caceres,
45 Phil. 895.]

With respect to the
record on appeal, it appearing that the disapproval of the record on appeal was
based not on legal grounds, there being no showing that it was disallowed
because it was defective, or filed out of time, or not in conformity with the
re­quirements of the Rules, the lower court is hereby directed to set for hearing anew the record on appeal and appeal
bond, and thereupon to take such action
and to issue such orders in relation thereto as the circumstances would
warrant.

Accordingly, the
writs of certiorari and prohibition
are denied; and the writ of mandamus is
granted.  With costs
against the private respondents.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, and Fernando, JJ., concur.