INTESTATE ESTATE OF ENCARNACION ELCHICO VDA. DE FERNANDO, DECEASED, NATIVIDAD E. IGNACIO AND LEONOR E. ALMAZAN, ADMINISTRATRICES-APPELLANTS, VS. EDUARDO ELCHICO AND FLORENCIO EL…

Major heirs, so-called, of the deceased Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando, are:  Jose L. Elchico, Salud Elchico Reyes and Natividad Elchico Ignacio.  On March
19, 1956, in the intestate proceedings for the settlement of the
estate of the said deceased Encarnacion
Elchico Vda. de Fernando,^[1]
the three (3) heirs submitted a “joint petition for partial partition and
distribution” of the estate.  This
was approved by the Manila probate court on April 3, 1956, upon a bond of P150,000,00 to answer for the
obligations of the estate.  This bond was filed on May 11, 1956. 
In consequence, the three (3) heirs entered into the possession of their corresponding shares
set forth in the partial partition.  To Jose L. Elchico
went the Angat transportation business as well as a
parcel of land located on Misericordia Street, Manila.

Thereafter, Jose L. Elchico, one of the heirs, died.  Settlement of his estate is pending
in a different court, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in
two special proceedings, one testate and the other intestate.^[2]

In June, 1959, the Angat transportation
business was sold by appellees Eduardo Elchico and Florencio Elchico, the co-administra­tors of Jose. L. Elchico, upon the authority of the Rizal
probate court given in an order of April 29, 1959.  The Misericordia
property remains under the administration of Jose L. Elchico’s
co-administrators.  In the court order
just mentioned, the Rizal probate court also granted
authority to sell the Misericordia property.

Came the motion of appellants-administratrices of the intestate estate of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando of March 16, 1961, filed with the Manila
probate court, which was supplemented by subsequent pleadings.  They pray that the Misericordia
lot be turned over to said administratrices, so that
the charges which burden the estate (Estate of Encarnacion
Elchico Vda. de Fernando)
“correspond­ing to the heir Dr. Jose L. Elchico
may be satisfied therefrom, the balance to be
returned to his heirs.” The administratrices
claim that the obligations of the
estate – consisting of approved and pending claims – in round figures, amount
to almost P400,000.00 (which includes a claim of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue for the balance of the estate and inheritances
taxes, more or less in the sum of P135,000.00 as of February 13, 1961); that of
the amount of P230,000.00, proceeds of the sale of the Angat
transportation business, nothing was turned over to the estate of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando for the
payment of Jose L. Elchico’s obligations in said
estate; that Jose L. Elchico had no other property
except the Misericordia lot; that should the sale of
said lot be finally effected, the proceeds thereof could be hidden and
dissipated and the estate of Jose L. Elchico would
not then be in a position to comply with the latter’s commitment in paragraph 3
of the partial partition and distribution of March 19, 1956, approved by the
court as aforesaid, viz:

“Par. 3d.  – That the above distribution shall not in
any manner affect the sufficiency or insufficiency for the payment of any
outstanding and/or future obligations and/ or expenses of the remaining estate
and which are not, in any manner,
related to the above enumerated properties to be distributed.  However, in the remote event that such
contingencies will arise, the heirs shall all be bound to contribute equally in
the payment of said obligations and/or expenses of the estate”;

but that the two
other heirs of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando are solvent “and can meet their respective shares of the
obligations as they arise.”

The administrators of Jose L. Elchico
opposed the motion.  They say that the proper procedure to be
followed in the premises is outlined in Section 6, Rule 89 of the 1940 Rules of
Court.  They aver that the Manila probate
court has no jurisdiction over the Misericordia lot
which is under the control of the Rizal probate court
in two special proceedings, testate and
intestate, of the deceased Jose L. Elchico.  They point to the surety bond of P150,000.00, claim at that time
that the same was sufficient to meet the obligations of the estate of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando.

On May 12, 1962,
the Manila probate court (Sp. Proc. 25256), acting upon
the motion and oppositions, issued the following
order:

“After considering the motion filed on March 16, 1961, by the administratrices
and it appearing that the opposition filed on April 5, 1961, by Eduardo Elchico,
the opposition filed on April 13, 1961,
by Florencio Elchico, and
the supplemental opposition filed on April
13, 1961, by Eduardo Elchico are well-taken, the Court hereby denies the motion under
consideration.

This proceeding is hereby set for hearing on June 1, 1961, at 8:30
a.m. for the purpose of determining how much and in what manner heir Jose L. Elchico (now deceased) shall contribute for the payment of
the unsettled and unpaid creditors’ claims and taxes.”

The move to reconsider was
rejected by the said court in its order of June 29, 1961.

The case is now before us
on the administratrices‘ appeal from the last two named orders.

1. Section 6, Rule 88 of the Rules of Court,^[3]
reads:

“SEC. 6. Court to fix contributive
shares where devisees, legatees or heirs have been in possession.  -Where devisees, legatees, or heirs have
entered into possession of portions of the estate before the debts and expenses
have been settled and paid, and have become liable to contribute for the
payment of such debts and expenses, the court having jurisdiction of the estate
may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of their
several liabilities, and order how much and in what manner each person shall
contribute, and may issue execution as circumstances require.”

Concededly, in the
situation here presented, where partial partition and distribution were effected, it is within the power of the Manila probate court
to issue the order of May 12, 1961
heretofore transcribed.  In fact, said
disputed order of May 12, 1961 closely
hewed the line set forth in Section 6 of Rule 88.  For, the court in
denying the motion to have the misericordia property
turned over to the estate, set the proceedings for hearing precisely “for the purpose of
determining how much and in what manner heir Jose L. Elchico (now deceased) shall
contribute for the payment
of the unsettled and unpaid creditors’ claims and taxes.”

The court’s statutory
authority conceded, we next look into the question of
whether there was reversible abuse of discretion.  The record of this case discloses that there
is nothing definite as to the
total liabilities of the estate of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de
Fernando.  And, naturally, Jose L. Elchico’s share in those obligations is unknown, indefinite.  Again, while it is true that the administratrices
aver that the only remaining
property of the estate is a
“piece of unsurveyed and untitled mineral land
the value of which is unknown and on the security of which no one is willing to
advance a loan,” this remains but an allegation.  And then, too, there is the P150,000.00-bond to
answer for the debts of Encarnacion’s estate. 
On the assumption that
the share in the obligation corresponding to Jose L. Elchico
is finally cleared up after the projected hearing,^[4] then the provisions of Section 6, Rule 88,
once again comes into focus, because his obligation to contribute becomes
definite.  The probate court, under this
statute, may then order that a writ of execution issue to compel the three (3)
heirs to pay their respective shares in the obligation thus
apportioned, to the extent, of course, of the properties that they received
from the estate.^[5] And, such execution is an expedient remedy.^[6] Furthermore, once the total obligation of Jose L. Elchico is
known after hearing, the Manila probate court is not precluded from taking other steps towards
the satisfaction of his said obligation. 
Without such hearing, any order for the return of
property distributed may appear to be premature.  More, the administratrices
could easily go to the Rizal probate court or the protection of Encarnacion’s
estate’s claim against the estate of
the deceased Jose L. Elchico pending there.

In the posture thus
presented, we are unprepared to say that the Manila probate court committed a
grave abuse of discretion, which is such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent o lack of
jurisdiction.  Citation of jurisprudence
is unnecessary to show that this Court should not interfere with the disputed
order of May 12.

2. Another roadblock will prevent the grant of the administratrices motion. 
That motion was filed in Special Proceedings 25256 of the Court of First
Instance of Manila (Intestate Estate of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando,
deceased).  The Misericordia
property is now in custodia legis
of another court, namely, the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
acting as a probate court in two special proceedings (2598, In re
Testate Estate of Jose L. Elchico, deceased, and 2600, In re Intestate Estate of
Jose L. Elchico,
deceased.).  The Rizal
and Manila courts are coordinate.  They
stand on the same level.  The Manila
court then may not take that
property out of the administration proceedings in the Rizal
court, without leave or consent
of the latter.  Should such interference be
sanctioned, confusion may ensue; the
administration of justice may be seriously
impaired.  At least out of respect for
the prerogatives of the Rizal court, the Manila court should not intermeddle with the authority
of the former.  This is especially true
here because the Rizal probate court had already
directed the sale of the very same Misericordia property
to satisfy amongst others the payment of Jose L. Elchico’s
share in the estate and
inheritance taxes due from the estate of the deceased Encarnacion
Elchico Vda. de Fernando.  The Manila probate court may not nullify this order of the Rizal
probate court – directly or indirectly.^[7]

Upon the record, we vote
to affirm the orders appealed from.  Costs against appellants.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1] Intestate Estate of Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando, Special Proceedings 25256, Court of First
Instance of Manila.

^[2] Special Proceedings 2598, entitled “In
re Testate Estate of Jose L. Elchico,
deceased”; and Special Proceedings 2600, entitled “In re
Intestate Estate of Jose L. Elchico, deceased,”
both of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

^[3] Formerly Section 6, Rule 89 of the 1940 Rules
of Court.

^[4] Lopez vs. Enriquez,
16 Phil. 336, 342-343; Espino vs. Rovira, 50 Phil. 152, 158.

^[5]
“The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the decedent.” Art. 1311, Civil Code.  See also:  Government vs. Pamintuan, 55 Phil. 13, 17; Cu Unjieng
vs. Tiaoqui, 64 Phil. 566, 576.

^[6]
III Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1963 Ed., p. 354.

^[7] I Martin, Rules of Court,
1963 ed., p. 67; Cabigao vs. Del Rosario, 44
Phil. 182, 184-185; Montesa vs. Manila Cordage
Co., 92 Phil. 25, 28-29; Philippine National Bank vs. Javellana, 92 Phil. 525, 527-528; Ongsingco
vs. Tan, 97 Phil., 330, 336; Araneta vs.
Commonwealth Insurance Co., 55 O.G., No. 3, pp. 431, 432-433.