ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, APPLICANT AND APPELLANT, VS. ENCARNACION AGUSTINES, ET AL., OPPOSITORS AND APPELLEES.

The land herein involved consists of nine hectares belonging to
Generosa Agustines who inherited it from her father Lucino Agustines.
When Generosa died in 1934, she left a will instituting her surviving
spouse Severo Valenzuela as her universal heir because she does not
have any child or descendant. The will Was admitted to probate in
special Proceedings No. 4944 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.

Josefa Agustines, sister of the deceased, together with some nephews
and nieces, opposed the probate of the will. However, on February 8,
1935 oppositors withdrew their opposition and as a result they executed
with the surviving spouse an agreement wherein, among others, they
bound themselves to respect the provisions of the will one of which
reads: “encargo a mi marido que, despues de que haya percibido todos
los bienes recayentes en mi herencia done * * * a la Iglesia Catolica
de Polo otro porcion que no exceda de nueve hectares, a discrecion
tambien de mi marido, del mismo terreno palayero e inculto, en el sitio
de Quiririt, para que su producto se invierta en misas en sufragio de
mi alma.” In compliance with this mandate, the oppositors agreed to
adjudicate the aforesaid nine hectares of land as wished by the
deceased inserting in the agreement a clause wherein they set aside
that portion, in order that its produce may be used for masses in
behalf of her soul. The pertinent portion of the clause provides: “Con
excepcion de, y despues de descontar aquella porcion de nueve (9)
hectares, cuyo producto, la finada ha destinado, para misas en sufragio
de su alma, a discrecion de su esposo, Sr. Severo Valenzuela, por
disposicion testamentaria * * *.” This agreement was approved by the
probate court on October 31, 1936. In its order closing the estate, the
Court said in part: “Archivese este expediente por terminado una vez
justificada en los autos la entrega a las referidos adjudicatarios de
sus respectivas hijuelas.”

Severo Valenzuela, the universal heir, failed to carry out the
mandate, or even to inform the Catholic Church of the legacy made in
its favor, and so, the aforementioned oppositors filed on November 1,
1943, Civil Case No. 158 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan
against Valenzuela alleging that they are the legal heirs of the
deceased who instituted Valenzuela as her universal heir charged with
the legacy of nine hectares of riceland in favor of the Roman Catholic
Church of Polo, but that after receiving the inheritance adjudicated to
him he failed and refused to deliver said legacy, wherefore they
claimed that they be declared legal owners of the land. The Roman
Catholic Church, on learning of the legacy in its favor, filed on
August 5, 1944 in said Civil Case No. 158, a complaint in intervention
alleging that the deceased, in instituting her husband as universal
heir, charged him with the obligation of donating to it a portion of
her land not exceeding nine hectares but that said husband failed to
execute the necessary deed of donation, wherefore it prayed that Severo
Valenzuela be sentenced to transfer to the intervenor said portion of
land and to render an accounting of its fruits.

Meantime, on September 7, 1944, Valenzuela filed a motion in the
testate proceedings of his late wife (Special Proceedings No. 4944)
praying that he be authorized to deliver a portion of the land worked
on by one Benito Salazar to the Catholic Church of Polo as directed in
the will, of which motion the oppositors were notified. In due time,
the motion was approved. Subsequently, oppositors filed a motion to set
aside the order on the ground, among others, that the order permits the
delivery of only one-hectare instead of nine hectares given in the
legacy and that the order would dispose of the issues raised by
oppositors in Civil Case No. 158. This motion was denied, as well as
the motion for reconsideration filed by the oppositors. On June 11,
1946, the oppositors instituted in the Supreme Court a petition for
certiorari and prohibition against the probate court seeking the
annulment of the order permitting the delivery on the ground that the
court had no jurisdiction to issue it because the previous order
rendered on October 31, 1936, approving the legacy of the Roman
Catholic Church had become final and executory, and praying further
that the probate court be prohibited from further proceeding in the
case. The Supreme Court, in a decision promulgated April 3, 1958,
annulled the order of the court on the ground’ that the previous order
can no longer be modified. Severo Valenzuela, after receiving the
decision of the Supreme Court, filed another petition in Special
Proceedings No. 4944 praying this time for authority to deliver nine
hectares to the legatee, which. petition was objected to by the
oppositors who argued that “to authorize Severo Valenzuela to deliver
now the nine (9) hectares of land to the Roman Catholic Arcbishop of
Manila, will constitute a prejudgment of Civil Case No. 158 pending in
the same Court.” Valenzuela replied to this opposition setting forth
the argument that the testamentary proceedings of Generosa Agustines
has not yet been definitely closed and that the oppositors are already
estopped to question the donation in view of the compromise they
submitted to the Court. On May 14, 1948, after hearing all parties, the
probate court granted the petition authorizing Severo Valenzuela to
donate the nine hectares to the Church. This order became final for
lack of appeal.

On June 30, 1948, pursuant to the order of the court, Severo
Valenzuela executed the deed of donation in favor of the Roman Catholic
Church. This donation was accepted, and the document was registered in
the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on September 17, 1951.
Thereafter, the Church took possession of the property.

Having already succeeded in acquiring and possessing the land which
was the object of its complaint in intervention in Civil Case No. 158,
the Church filed on December 13, 1948 a motion to dismiss its complaint
in so far as the nine hectares are concerned, which motion was duly
granted. And on September 7, 1951, the Church instituted the present
proceedings for registration before the Court of First Instance of
Bulacan in order that the land may be registered in its name in
accordance with the Land Registration Law. After the requisite
publication, the application was called for initial hearing on March
25, 1952 where only the oppositors appeared to oppose the application.
Then an order of general default against the whole world was entered
by. the court. On April 3, 1952 the oppositors filed their opposition
to the application claiming that they are the owners in fee simple of
the land for having inherited it from the deceased Generosa Agustines,
that its ownership was decreed in their favor in Civil Case No.. 158,
and that, the donation executed by Valenzuela in favor of the applicant
was declared invalid in said civil case.

After due trial, the lower court rendered decision on November 15,
1956, ordering the registration of the land subject of the application
in favor of the oppositors, but ordering the oppositors to refund to
the applicant the fees for registration of the application and for
publication, as well as the cost of making the plans. This is the
decision now subject of this appeal. It was certified to this Court by
the Court of Appeals on the ground that it merely involves questions of
law.

The main question to be determined is whether the probate court had
jurisdiction to act on the petition for authority to donate and deliver
the nine hectares in question to appellant filed by the trustee Severo
Valenzuela in Special Proceedings No. 4944 it appearing that nearly
twelve years had elapsed since said motion was filed and the probate
court had already declared the testamentary proceedings closed and
terminated.

Appellee claims that the probate court had no longer jurisdiction to
act on said motion and so when it approved the same on May 14, 1948 and
authorized Severo Valenzuela to execute the necessary deed of donation
in favor of the appellant over the nine hectares in question in
accordance with the mandate of the will the probate court acted without
jurisdiction. This contention was upheld by the trial court and this is
now assigned as error.

We are inclined to agree to the claim of appellant that the trial
court erred in holding that the probate court could no longer entertain
the petition for authority to make the donation for the reason that the
order issued on October 31, 1936 approving the partition agreement
submitted in the testate proceedings has already terminated the
jurisdiction of the probate court, for said ruling runs counter to the
very terms of the aforesaid order of October 31, 1936. We refer to the
last portion of the order which says: “Archivese esta expediente por
terminado una vez justificada de los autos la entrega a los referidos
adjudicatarios de sus respectivas hijuelas.” In other words, the order
in question shows that the court did not close the proceedings entirely
but held the same open until it is proven in the record that the
legacies had been delivered to the beneficiaries thereof, and it is
obvious that even without such reservation, the court has the inherent
power to enforce and compel obedience to its orders in view of its
jurisdiction to see to it that the estate be properly distributed,
adjudicated and delivered to those entitled thereto. This can be
clearly inferred from Rule 91 of the Rules of Court which gives the
probate court continued jurisdiction to pass upon and decide any claim
or demand of any interested person or legatee for the recovery of the
share of the estate that may be adjudicated to him from the executor or
administrator, all of which comes within the jurisdiction of the
probate court. Until all this is done its jurisdiction is not deemed
terminated..

It is true that this court annulled and set aside the previous order
of the probate court granting the trustees authority to donate a
portion of the estate to the Roman Catholic Church (Exh. 23), but the
nullification was predicated not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
but on the fact that it tried to amend a prior order of the court which
has already become final and executory. This Court did not even
prohibit the trustee to take any further step in the testate case
relative to the donation in question, as was asked by the oppositors in
their petition for certiorari.

Now, as already stated, when the Supreme Court set asides the order
of the probate court authorizing the donation of only one hectare of
land, the trustee Severo Valenzuela, apparently repentant of what he
had done, moved to rectify his mistake by applying with the same
probate court for a new authority to donate to appellant the nine
hectares of land mentioned in the will, of which appellees were duly
notified, so much so that they filed a vigorous opposition thereto. One
of the grounds advanced by them was that “to authorize Severo
Valenzuela to deliver now the nine hectares of land to the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Manila will constitute a prejudgment of Civil
Case No. 158 pending in the same Court,” because there the question of
whether or not the parish of Polo, now represented by appellant, was
still entitled to said parcel of land was in issue, considering the
failure of the trustee to make the donation and the apparent inaction
of the legatee to receive it. In reply to this opposition, appellant
set up the defense that the oppositors are already estopped to question
the right of appellant to the donation in view of the agreement of
adjudication signed by them and approved by the court. And on May 14,
1948, after hearing all the parties, the probate court overruled the
opposition and granted the necessary authority. This order became final
for lack of appeal.

Considering the foregoing circumstances, we hold that said order of
May 14, 1948 which overruled the opposition of appellees and granted
the trustee the necessary authority to donate the land as in fact he
did on June 30, 1948, has the effect of res judicata on the decision
rendered in Civil Case No. 158. And we say so because the issues and
parties involved in the two cases are the same. They both refer to the
validity of the donation and the right of the donee to the property.

Moreover, even if we disregard the order of the court above adverted
to granting the trustee authority to make the donation, we are of the
opinion that the steps taken by the trustee in executing the donation
on June 30, 1948 is valid and proper for the same is in accordance with
the agreement of the parties which was duly approved by the court on
October 31, 1936. It should be noted that the pertinent portion of the
legacy embodied in the agreement of the parties provides that “encargo
a mi marido que, despues de que haya a percibido todos los bienes
recayente en mi herencia done a la Iglesia Catolica de Polo otro
porcion que no exceda de nueve hectares, * * * para que su producto se
invierta en misas en sufragio de mi alma.” This is a valid and
subsisting trust given to the husband to be carried out sometime in the
future. And since the same has already been approved by the court, no
further court authority is necessary to carry it out.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. It is ordered
that the nine hectares subject of the application for registration be
registered in the name of the applicant in accordance with law. With
costs against appellees.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.